Talk:Did It Again (Kylie Minogue song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading this article years ago, and I am happy to see it has really come along. Here are my comments:

As I read the article, there are a lot of instances of poor phrasing. Like, the subject and verb don't always match, or independent clauses aren't congruent with the rest of the sentence. For example, in the sentence, "In January 1997, after nearly two years of absent solo material, Minogue was ready to release a new single.[1] " The solo material isn't absent (that implies that Minogue made material as a solo artist, and then it went missing); Minogue herself was absent from the stuidio/touring. I'm going to point out sentences that need re-writes, but you (or another invested editor who is a strong copyeditor) may also want to give the article a thorough re-read to eliminate such instances.
From the lead: "who approved her more edgier and rock style" -- should say "who approved of her edgier rock style"
This sentence: "Pedro Romanhi, where it features four different versions of Kylie with names: Indie Kylie, Cute Kylie, Dance Kylie and Sex Kylie." should instead say, "Pedro Romanhi, which features four different versions of Kylie: Indie Kylie, Cute Kylie, Dance Kylie and Sex Kylie."
This sentence: "The video was critically acclaimed, mainly praising the idea of having four Kylies in the concept." should read, "The video was critically acclaimed, with most praise directed at the idea of having four Kylies in the concept."
The "Background" section is redudant and has some prose issues. I copyedited the section, including some of the following changes:

There is a lot of unnecessary passive voice in the article, most of which I've corrected, for example, in this sentence: "The song has been performed on two of Minogue's tours." should read, "Minogue performed the song on two of her tours."
The first three sentences under "Background" are redundant and not clear. Replace them with this: "After nearly a two year absence, Minogue announced she would be releasing a new single in January 2007 to start off the campaign for her new album, Impossible Princess." The postponement is mentioned later in the paragraph, so leave that out.
This sentence: "Deconstruction Records' A&R Pete Hadfield fell terribly ill that lasted for a year, which meant all creative production was handled by Minogue and producers Brothers in Rhythm." Should be, "Deconstruction Records' A&R representative, Pete Hadfield, fell terribly ill for a year, so all creative production was handled by Minogue and the producers Brothers in Rhythm. "
"This sentence, "When he managed to come to some sessions, he was intentionally concerned with the lack of single choices, where he felt the songs written by Minogue were not up to commercial standards.[4]" should be, "When he did manage to come to some sessions, he was concerned with the lack of single choices, and he felt the songs written by Minogue were not up to commercial standards.[4]"

In the second paragraph under "Background" is says "this idea was scrapped". What idea?
The Background section (often called "Background and release") contains little information about the release of the song. Consider adding information about its promotion, first live performances, on which formats it was released (cassette, vinyl, etc...). I would also mention the three edited versions referenced in the infobox (radio, single, and album).
Under "Composition", I fact tagged "pop rock" song, since genre classifications tend to be contentious.
Any section on composition in an article can easily slip into original research, and it is imperative that every assertion be backed up with a citation. Any lyrical interpretations need to be substantiated by a reputable source in the music community. Otherwise, it looks like a Wikipedia editor listened to the song, then interpreted the lyrics.
There were some major neutrality issues in "Composition" (about Minogue and her "spinning" answers about her weight) which I rephrased.
This sentence: "Lyrically, the song deals with Minogue telling her lover not to mess up things, but does it again and again." -- doesn't really make any sense, unfortunately. Is it saying she messes up again and again? If so, why is she telling her lover not to mess up? Or is her lover messing up again and again? Or is she telling her lover again and again not to mess up?
Under "Critical reception", there are a mix of contemporary reviews that came out right after the song was released and more recent reviews that reflect on the song's legacy. They should be split up into two different paragraphs, with sentences that explain that fact.
The dating is inconsistent in the article, sometimes using the format May 6, 2014, and sometimes using the format 6 May 2014. Since this is an article about an Australian artiist, I would say make everything consistent to the latter format.
Under the "Music video" section, is "stated that the four different Kylies were brilliantly satirised in the video" a quote? If so, it needs to be in quotes.
Under "Live performances", are there any reviews on how she performed the song live?
The references need better formatting, and raw url's are not acceptable. See WP:CITET for assistance.
Surely, a more reliable source than "I.ebaying.com" can be found for the existence of this album.
"Freewebs.com" is a dead site.
The link to "musicomh.com" is dead.
The link to "dcita.gov.au" is dead.
The "Retrieved date" formatting needs to match across all references.

This is all for now. This article still needs quite a bit of work, but I am hopeful that the issues can be resolved. For now, I am placing it on hold.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone messed it up after I nominated the article. I am solving these issues. Alex ^{talk page!} 19:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you go through it carefully, you can fix whatever damage may have been done by a less experienced editor.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fail the nomination? I'm kind of busy in real life and I won't be able to do it in the next days. Alex ^{talk page!} 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Best wishes for a future nomination, and let me know if you need any help.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]