Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Can't Get You Out of My Head/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [1].

Can't Get You Out of My Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 2001 monster hit-single by Australian singer Kylie Minogue. First of all, I would like to thank WonderBoy1998 (unfortunately, retired now) who made an amazing job with the article and brought it to GA status. Seeing the FA potential in it, I trimmed it and re-organized a bit and I believe with some additional tweaking it can get the bronze star it deserves. Also, much thanks to Twofingered Typist who copy-edited it and gave the prose a better flow! — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review
  • Fair use rationale for the sound sample might be improved. Does it demonstrate any musical elements other than the "la-la-la hook"?
  • There is no contextual significance of the single cover, unless any reliable sources actually discuss the cover. Any of the images of her performing the song would make suitable header image.
  • If there's not any commentary on the cover, it's hard to see how it meets "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Again, if it is significant, why have no sources discussed it? NFCC is a policy and supersedes any guidelines on covers being beneficial to have in the infobox, if they are free. (t · c) buidhe 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed before, there doesn't need to be any commentary/review of the cover. You can check any single/album article on Wikipedia. They all have covers, whenever they are a C, B, GA, FA status, because there is a license and it's possible to have them here in lower quality and not bigger than 300x300. Even when you upload the image, there is a license you can choose and by which they are allowed to be used freely in the infobox. — Tom(T2ME) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I think the claim in the lead that the song is famous for its hook goes a bit beyond what's supported in the text - source for this?
  • "one of the best-selling singles of all time" - source?
  • M Magazine is a work title. Ditto Musicnotes.com, check for others
  • FN11: what's the end of the page range? Ditto FN12, check for others
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • FN13: you've listed the publisher that corresponds to the sheet music linked, but the website name provided should be listed under |via= or left out. Ditto FN71, check for others
  • Be consistent in when you include publishers
  • Allmusic or AllMusic?
  • What makes Acclaimed Music a high-quality reliable source? IMVDb? Petrolicious? Psycho on Tyres?
  • FN64 is missing page
  • Fn24: the website is simply Pitchfork, Pitchfork Media is the publisher
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example GfK is linked in FN40 not FN39
  • Fn49 is missing retrieval date
  • FNs 51 through 55 should specify chart
  • Fn57 is incomplete

Stopping there and oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikkimaria! Thanks for the reference review. I fixed most of the issues, but I am still working on some of them. I should be done by the end of the week. — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I believe I resolved all of the above reference issues. Please feel free to double check when you have time. Thanks! — Tom(T2ME) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45: URL shouldn't be part of title. Ditto FN47, check for others
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do there. The title is automatically generated from singles chart template. Those are preferred in music articles over manually cited chart references. — Tom(T2ME) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria It's easier to organize the references and the bot gets the right URL dates and chart positions automatically. Also, if you open one of the references, you can notice that that's the full URL name. And I think I resolved the rest of them, but please check again. — Tom(T2ME) 13:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • What makes Swide a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fn68: why not cite the book directly?
  • FN72 is missing work title and has the incorrect publisher name, but also what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN86: listed work title is the author
  • FN94: RSP indicates that AllMusic is questionable for biographical details
  • What makes Hectic but Eclectic a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN97 is missing date
  • FN169 is misformatted, but why not cite the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get a few reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another coord note—this is not where it needs to be in terms of thoroughness of reviews and consensus to promote. I'm willing to leave it open for a few more days but it will be soon archived if more substantial review is not forthcoming. --Laser brain (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Laser_brain, this discussion has 3 supports, out of which one user extensively reviewed the article and all the queries were resolved. The other support is by a user who did copy-edits on the article by himself. The reference oppose was struck, since all the issues were also resolved. I have to disagree with you if you find that one user's (HĐ) vote uncertainty to be a no consensus to promote. I will be more than happy to hear other user reviews here, however, if that doesn't happen, I don't think archiving this is a good call. Would like to hear the opinion of the other coordinators as well if possible. PS. the only thing missing that is the spot check reference review. — Tom(T2ME) 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomica, as you're aware this isn't a numbers game nor is it a "vote". We look at the quality, rigor, and content of reviews above all else. For something that's been open for almost two months, I wouldn't say it's in the neighborhood of something ready for promotion. Especially with one substantive review expressing doubt about the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware yes, (this is my eighth FAC article I have worked on and nominated it) however, the user's doubt express doesn't specify anything about the "quality" of the article. In total honesty, it is very vague. And precisely, it's been open for 2 months and extensively worked on it to be archived. — Tom(T2ME) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ

[edit]
  • Following its release, the song has been performed by Minogue on all her concert tours, except the Anti Tour. It is also recognised as Minogue's signature song and a defining point in her musical career. In 2012, the song was re-recorded for inclusion on her orchestral compilation album, The Abbey Road Sessions. →→ I believe passive voice is discouraged
  • I see that passive voice is rather frequent in the article (i.e. Dennis and Davis had been brought together by British artist manager Simon Fuller,; The song was recorded using Cubase music software, which Davis ran on his Mac computer; The music, excluding the guitar part, was programmed using a Korg Triton workstation via MIDI), and I've just skimmed through the Background section. Consider revising to active voice, and passive voice should be avoided at all cost unless there is no better wording option
  • "Can't Get You Out of My Head" is a midtempo dance[7] dance-pop,[8] techno-pop[9] and neo-disco son → This is a case of WP:SYNTH
  • is composed instead with numerous "misplaced sections" → You may need to explain more on this so that readers can understand more easily
  • Through the song's lyrics, Minogue expresses an obsession with an anonymous figure. Dorian Lynskey of The Guardian termed the song a "mystery" as Minogue never reveals the identity of the object of her infatuation.[14] The critic suggested that the person Minogue is referring to is either "a partner, an evasive one-night stand or someone who doesn't know she exists" → This can be shortened into one sentence
  • I feel that the Critical reception section is a quote farm
  • I see that it's common practice for music articles to focus extensively on a perceived commercially successful song. I would advise to trim down to only include essential information, per WP:CHARTTRAJ
  • I shortened some details, however, having in mind the chart success this song had, the sections are just fined. There are Wiki articles with GA/FA status who have longer sections just based on how successful they were in one, two countries (usually US, since Billboard publishes a lot). — Tom(T2ME) 17:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two "Legacy" sections; one in the "Music video" section and the other is an independent section. I'd suggest to merge
  • The "Commercial impact" section can be completely included in the "Commercial performance" section
  • Various publications recognise "Can't Get You Out of My Head" as Minogue's signature song → But only two sources are included

The article has various prose issues, but I believe they can be resolved. However, I am not confident to support promoting this article to FA status. — HĐ (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd follow up with some prose issues that I come across in the article; I am not confident to say that the prose satisfies the brilliant criterion of an FA, and the following issues are not exhaustive:

  • "Davis used Cubasemusic software when he recorded the song on his Mac computer.[1] Davis began playing an acoustic guitar and ran a 125 beats per minute drum loop, on which Dennis began singing the line "I just can't get you out of my head" in the key of D minor.[1]" → I think the flow is not there. The bit can be rewritten as Davis started off by generating a 125 bpm drum loop on the programme Cubasemusic equipped with an acoustic guitar, on which Dennis sang what later became the song's lyric
  • singer Cathy Dennis and songwriter Rob Davis had been brought together by British artist manager Simon Fuller, → but the source reads, I think it was Simon Fuller who put us together via Universal Publishing
  • The first paragraph of the "Writing and release" section can be improved in terms of flow; plus I don't think the cited quotes are necessary as they don't provide substantial understanding of the process. The quotes can even be summed up in one sentence such as Davis and Dennis recalled that the recording process was "very natural and fluid" that did not rely on heavy instrumentation.
  • Ditto with Dennis's quote in the second para. I personally don't recommend excessive quotes because it makes the prose bloated and does not provide substance
  • Ditto with the quote box
  • After Fuller heard the demo, he felt it was not suited for S Club 7 and rejected it. English singer-songwriter Sophie Ellis-Bextor also turned down an offer to record it.[1][3] Davis then met with Kylie Minogue's A&R executive, Jamie Nelson. After hearing the demo cassette of the song, Nelson booked it for Minogue to record later that year.[1] → Can be shorten to something as "Before pitching the song to Minouge, Davis and Dennis unsuccessfully offered the song to S Club 7 and Sophie Ellis-Bextor"
  • Additionally, in their book, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide... → Why is the preposition additionally here?
  • The song does not follow the common verse-chorus structure but is composed instead with numerous "misplaced sections".[1] Dennis reasoned that these sections "somehow work together" as she and Davis didn't attempt to give the song a traditional structure.[1] → Two sentences with the same content, ditto

I am sorry, but I personally think that the article now satisfies up to GA quality at most. Though there have been vast improvements, especially with the Critical reception section, I am hesitant to endorse the article for FA status. I am well aware that you've successfully promoted quite a few articles to FA status, but this article needs more work to make the prose brilliant (which should be well within your abilities, I hope). Noting that two months have passed since the FAC initiation, I regret to oppose this for promotion, HĐ (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, my point is that the article does not appear to satisfy criterion 1a, and it definitely needs more work beyond my comments before it can proceed to FAC. The prose is filled with sentences that I do not consider well-written (i.e. "Jointly written and produced by"; "Commercially, it peaked at..."; "13 years after the song's release"; "whilst" (I don't know why the more common "while" is not used); "Subsequently, it became the most-played song of 2001 there"). The content also appears to be cherry-picked/indiscriminate in parts: there's a source indicating that the single peaked atop charts of all European countries except Finland, which is not there in the Commercial performance section (the section also selects very certain countries, which is only understandable for Minogue's "home countries" of the UK and Australia, despite the fact that the song received certifications in many other regions). "British red top newspaper News of the World speculating that the singer could be an alien"; does this relate to the music video? "The critic takes a ride with Minogue through a city and encounters various musicians and artists like the ghost of Elvis Presley, and Madonna, Kraftwerk, and [Ludwig] Wittgenstein"; yes... so?
The issues I raised are by no means exhaustive, and I suggest that you overhaul the article -- don't hesitate to remove anything that's not particularly relevant to the subject discussed, and make sure the sentences are straightforward without needlessly fancy prepositions/wordings. On a side note, I don't consider sentences starting with "In [year...]/On [date...]" to be well-written, except in unavoidable cases. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part, "Jointly written, composed, and produced by", I am uncertain of the difference between "written" and composed". I think it would be more concise to just say "Written and produced by". I have a similar comment for this later part: "was written, composed, and produced jointly by".
  • In the lead, I would add the year "The Loco-Motion" was released as that would show the time between that song and this one.
  • I would cut down this part, "the revealing hooded white jumpsuit", to just "white jumpsuit". The current phrasing seems unnecessarily detailed for the lead.
  • I am a little confused by this part, "Although Davis was initially under the impression that the recording deal would be called off later", specifically the "recording deal" phrasing. I did not think a "recording deal" would have been drawn up for a single song, and I would associate this more with a "recording session" or something similar.
  • I would change "performing it during the tour" to "on the tour" to be more concise.
  • I think there is a way to combine this two parts, "and it was released on 8 September 2001 by Parlophone in Australia" and "it was released on 17 September", without repeating "it was released" twice in the same sentence.
  • Since the obsessive love is linked in the lead, I would do the same in the article for consistency.
  • Done. 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the purpose of the images in the "Critical reception" and "Cultural impact" sections. Neither of these sections are about the live performances so they seem more decorative than anything else.
  • I do not think this part, [Minogue's], is necessary in the AllMusic sentence as it can be assumed from context.
  • There is a lot of great information in the "Critical reception" section, but aside from the third paragraph, there does not appear to be any particular structure. I'd be curious to hear how you organized the information here?
  • I am uncertain if the music video screenshot's caption needs the citations since the references are already included in the prose.
  • I would start a new paragraph with this sentence, "Various scenes in the video...", as it is going into a different point, and the paragraph is rather long already.
  • For the Diane Railton and Paul Weston, I think it would be more helpful to include some sort of descriptive phrase to introduce them to readers rather than including the name of their essay. I would say the same for Lee Barron. I do not think adding the essays' names to the prose is particularly helpful, especially when that information is already present in the citation. A short descriptive phrase would give more context to the writer's background and better inform their approach.
  • I know MetroLyrics is commonly used in song articles, but I am uncertain on its reliability. I have found instances where it lists either wrong or incomplete information on songwriters. I will leave this up to you, but I would suggest removing it from the "External links" section. Again, entirely up to you on this.
  • Apparently, Minogue performed this on Good Morning America. I am uncertain if a reliable source can be found that covers this, but I wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • The following Billboard issue (here) contains some useful info on the song's U.S. release. For instance, one music director said the song resonated more with "women 25 and up" instead of being a "club record kids call about". It seems to be a long version of the "Can Kylie Break In The U.S.?" source already cited in the article so there may be more information there. Just a suggestion.
  • I had initially thought it would fit in the "Oceania and United States" subsection, but upon further reflection, I am more uncertain. That subsection is already rather long, and there is already quite a bit of information on the U.S. reception so this may be too much unnecessarily detailed information. I'd be interested to see how other editors respond to this. So I would say wait for now with this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a rumor going around that Michael Rooney's choreography "was dictated by the size of his hotel room", and Minogue has addressed it in this interview at around the 3:40 mark. Do you think that is notable enough for inclusion?
  • I agree. Since it is an unconfirmed rumor, it would not make sense to add it to the article. I wanted to raise it to your attention to see if you knew anything more on it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your research. However, since there is no 'other usage in media' section, I am not sure where this information can be appropriately added in the article. — Tom(T2ME) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see this maybe fitting in the "Impact" section since it is mostly about recreating the music video, but it may be too trivial to mention. Just wanted to raise this to your attention. I will read through the article again in a few. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have four more comments before I will support this for promotion. They are the following:
  • I am still not entirely sure on the structure of the "Critical reception". A possible alternative would be to have the first paragraph be focused on reviews that came out during the song's release and the second one on retrospective reviews.
  • Well, with the exception of the GQ review, the section follows that scheme right now. I can move that one into the second paragraph, but I feel like the first one then would be too short. :/ — Tom(T2ME) 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree actually. The first two paragraphs have both contemporary and retrospective reviews mixed in. For instance, the Pitchfork review at the end of the second paragraph was published in 2002. It seems odd to have almost the entire second paragraph being retrospective reviews and then end with a 2002 one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about how this quote ("if Minogue had attempted to outshine it") is used in the prose as I was not sure of the meaning until I read the source. I also do not think this part ("her voice works fine alongside it") is entirely accurate as Lipshutz is praising Minogue for consciously matching her vocals to the production rather than over-singing it. I think this point could be made clearer.
  • Instead of quoting the whole sentence, I would suggest paraphrasing most of it and only use parts of it as quotes. Just something about the original wording seemed off to me. Maybe instead something like: (13 years after the song's release, Billboard's Jason Lipshutz praised Minogue's vocals as complimenting the production, and said "her voice operates alongside it, finding renewed power in its drive".) Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Thanks for the suggestion. Added it. — Tom(T2ME) 18:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say this ("after nearly 15 after the release") in the prose, but the article says 13. You are also missing the word "years" here.
  • Thanks for this, fixed it. 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed it with the second one. Too bad the other photo was blurry. That white outfit is an iconic Minogue outfit and same for the dancers' outfits. Madonna paid tribute to Kylie by using the same ones for her dancers during the MDNA Tour I believe. — Tom(T2ME) 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these four points, everything looks good to me, and I will be more than happy to support this for promotion when everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status

[edit]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Coordinator comment - As stated in my previous note, this is nowhere near where it needs to be and has been open for quite a long time. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Can%27t_Get_You_Out_of_My_Head/archive1&oldid=978279881"