Talk:Get Lucky (Daft Punk song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Get Lucky (Daft Punk song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Get Lucky (Daft Punk song). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Get Lucky (Daft Punk song) at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Get Lucky (Daft Punk song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 1, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music High‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Tenryuu, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 June 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This isn't Disco.

Why is this song credited as Disco? It's more R&B/Funk-flavored than Disco. In Disco you generally have orchestral mixed bridges and heavy usage of synthesizers with a quicker tempo. The lyrical composition is also more uptempo. This song is more mid-tempo in relation to Funk with a chord progressing guitar arrangement line pervading throughout - which is a semblance of Funk and its celled onbeat/offbeat structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't agree more. its quite clearly dubstep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.185.139 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[reply to above comment] That is the most ridiculous statement I've heard all day. Have you ever listened to Dubstep?

Someone doesn't get sarcasm

Live performances and cover versions

Should this section in the article exist? There's been a bit of back and forth in the edits between deleting and restoring, and I would just like to see what y'all done thunk 'bout it. Helicopter Llama 20:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it was in the "Background" section as I recall, but was spun off as a separate section. The info is tangentially related to the song, and I'm not sure what the criteria is for inclusion of such things in an article about the main version of the song. jhsounds (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section

shouldn't we encourage analysis of song structure etc? JCJC777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that cited analysis should be included in the article. However, it would best be included in a more specific section, such as "Composition". My goal in merging the "minor chords" analysis into the "Reception" section was to avoid overlap with the existing "Background" and "Reception" sections, both of which contain compositional analysis. jhsounds (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the music video?

Anybody knows that this song onna have a music video?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.149.85 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss changes to the article, not a forum to discuss the article's subject in general. jhsounds (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motown and Michael Jackson comparisons?

Is it relevent to include a section on the comparisons made by critics between Get Lucky and the Motown Sound, particularly the base line? And to the ensuing series of YouTube videos that where either pitch shifted [1] to sound as if it where sung by Michael Jackson, or mashed with performances by Michael Jackson or other Motown performers like The Supremes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.14.233 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cited analysis of these comparisons from reputable sources may be appropriate for the article. It might make more sense to put such information in the "Reception" section, unless a large amount of prose warrants a separate section. jhsounds (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reevaluate

I'm not sure how to go about this, but I'd like to know if this article qualifies for something better than "Start-class". I think that it's a little better than other "Start-class" song articles, but I'm not quite sure and would love to have someone more experienced than I evaluate this article. ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_p3sM7KvM

This is somewhat shocking, but this is an emerging story and all, still, considerations of plagiarism should be kept in view if verifiable sources pick this up and thus offer us something we can publish in the article.

Revrant (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't 1970s

This videoclip is not seen in 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.188.199 (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Monkey

Why does "Mexican Monkey" redirect here? --BenStein69 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Year-end

Here is a link http://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2013/japan-hot-100?page=1 --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1971 song ‘Get Lucky’ by Daft Punk ft. Pharrell

Why is the original not mentioned (listen). --Mattes (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Get Lucky (Daft Punk song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.national-report.com/forms/init100s.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/?i=poprock
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328195045/http://dutchcharts.nl//jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2013&cat=s to http://www.dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2013&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Get Lucky (Daft Punk song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Get Lucky (Daft Punk song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 10:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Rodgers, baby! I'll get through this one probably after the weekend. Watch this video about Rodgers in the meantime. Tkbrett (✉) 10:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead and infobox

You list this as the first Nile Rodgers single, but on the works section of his page it lists "Shady", Adam Lambert ft. Sam Sparro and Nile Rodgers (2012). Should that be indicated as coming before hand? This isn't meant to be a leading question, I don't know if that's how the song was actually credited, or if you would credit it as his single given he was a featured artist and not the main.

Added "Shady" to the infobox

Background

Make sure you introduce or explain Chic and Rodgers. Someone who doesn't know about them will be confused why it matters the song was recorded in the same studio as Chic's first single.

Removed that info as it is not that important

"Rodgers told The Village Voice that American singer Pharrell Williams was interested in working with Daft Punk." This sentence's placement and wording is somewhat strange. It makes it sound like The Village Voice had something to do with connecting Williams and Daft Punk.

Removed The Village Voice part

I moved that sentence onto the start of the next paragraph, as it seems to work better there.

Production

"Daft Punk re-recorded the bass part with Nathan East to fit Rodgers' performance" The wording makes it sound like three people were playing the bass. How about "Daft Punk had Nathan East re-record the bass part to fit Rodgers' performance." Or some variation.

Changed

"Chilly Gonzales also observed" -> observed is a word to watch

Reworded

Music and lyrics

"Owen Pallet for Slate observed" -> observed again

Rewored

"He noted when the" -> Noted (or note) is also a word to watch

Changed

Critical reception

""Get Lucky" received widespread acclaim from media outlets and music critics." This claim needs a citation.
""Get Lucky" has received many awards and nominations." So will this.

Removed both of those sentences.

Credits and personnel

For what it's worth, WikiProject Albums mentions to not overlink common instruments, so I've removed the links to vocals, guitar, bass and drums.

Sounds good.

References

copyvio score is 43.2% due to the Slate article. I think we just need to paraphrase these sentences just a little more: "Owen Pallet for Slate observed that the song can be heard in two different keys. He asserted most of the time it sounds as the though song is played in the minor mode of A Aeolian, which is a form of A minor, and appears as the third of the four chords on the line "We're up all night for good fun". The first chord of the progression is not played in A minor, rather D minor." The next value is 31%, so once the above is paraphrased we're good to go.

Reworded

Copyvio score is now 94.9% due to a Wikipedia Copycat. The next score is 35.9%, indicating a violation is unlikely.

After checking against freely available sources in several places, the article appears to be reliably referenced.

Final comments and verdict

Cover image and audio sample are appropriately tagged as fair use and image of Williams is PD.
On hold: A nicely written article. Once the above concerns are addressed then this should be a pass. Tkbrett (✉) 20:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett thanks so much for the review! I should have the GA review for Thinking of Linking ready by tomorrow afternoon. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pass: all looks good to me. Nicely done. Ha, you're too fast! Tkbrett (✉) 23:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyedit request

Hello Shoot for the Stars. After completing my preliminary copyedit I always ask questions about the article to ensure that my edit reflects the intended meaning and is clear in doing so. Please reply to each point by indenting below each one like you would a conversation; items will be struck out once they have been answered. Please ping me with {{U}}, {{ping}}, or {{re}} as I have a lot of items on my watchlist. My copyediting process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article sometimes uses serial commas for lists and sometimes it doesn't. I prefer serial commas myself, but it seems like there are more instances where it isn't used. Which would you prefer? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He had joked that, "If you just want me to play tambourine, I'll do it." Is this important enough to remain in the article? The message wouldn't change if this sentence were completely excised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[...] the D minor is made each time [...] I've never heard of keys being "made". Would it be more appropriate to say [...] the song switches to D minor to [...]? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
British journalist Caitlin Moran speculates that the song's attractiveness [...] Wikilink removed. What's meant by "attractiveness"? It's not a quality I would ascribe to a song. Would "catchiness" work as an alternative? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The song was leaked and broadcast on various radio stations days before it was released as a single. Already edited. Should a distinction between the song itself and its status as a single be made? The next sentence seems to conflate the two as the same thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[...] Pazz & Jop annual critics' poll ranked "Get Lucky" at number one to find the best music of 2013. Wikilink removed, emphasis added. Is the emphasised part necessary? It sounds like an editorial remark, but is it supposed to be a paraphrase from the associated source:[...] seeking consensus from the minds of the men and women who live and breathe this stuff, about what the best musical works of the previous year were? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[...] which made "Get Lucky" the country's best-selling single of the year thus far. Already edited. This statement is very likely stale by now. I think it should be changed to when the source reported it: December 2013. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We rob a Mexican monkey" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect We rob a Mexican monkey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 2 § We rob a Mexican monkey until a consensus is reached. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]