Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Can't Get You Out of My Head/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2021 [1].

Can't Get You Out of My Head

edit
Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a major hit by Kylie Minogue. They say third time is the charm, so let's see how this goes. Huge thanks to Baffle gab1978 for giving the prose an amazing and fresh look! — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: Add captions to the tables per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, thanks for the review. i added captions. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to get this within the week. Unfortunately, computer issues have been making editing rather difficult lately, but since I had participated in the first FAC and completely missed the second one, I want to try my best to help. That and I love this song. Please ping me if I have not posted any comments in the next week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thank you! Your feedback is always welcome! :) — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a quick question. I have done some minor edits to the article while reading through it. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Were there any negative reviews for the song? The article only has positive reviews, and while I believe that most critics responded positively to the song, I would be curious if you saw any negative reviews? Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, actually I could not find any negative reviews haha :) except the one by Jude Rogers of The Quietus, who apparently did not like the orchestral reboot of the song. =) Also, thanks for the c/e, I really appreciate it! — Tom(T2ME) 09:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. It seems like even critics who gave mixed or negative reviews of the album still enjoyed this song. I was just curious about this when reading the article. Apologies for the delay with my review. Computer issues are quite annoying lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot remember if I had asked you this or not so apologies if this is repetitive. In this interview, Minogue briefly talks about the white jumpsuit being inspired by Grace Jones (it is around the 1:30 mark of the video). It is a rather minor detail, but I wanted to raise it to your attention, especially since the jumpsuit is one aspect of the music video that received the most attention (and rightfully so).

I think the article is in incredibly shape. As I had said in an above comment, I had participated in the first FAC and I supported it for promotion at the time. I still support for promotion now as my minor comment/question is not enough to hold me back from doing so. I hope to see more Kylie Minogue songs in the FAC space. I remember being instantly hooked by this song and being so impressed by the music video when I first heard and saw them (but as an American, I think I heard and saw both of them at least five years after their releases lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47! I really appreciate your comments and feedback! Hopefully this time we manage to bring the bronze star at the top of the article! PS. I added the information about Grace Jones ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 17:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit
  • This is three weeks in and the nomination shows little sign of a gathering consensus to support. Unless activity here picks up considerably over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived.
Have you contacted all of the editors who have commented on previous FAC nominations of this? Do you have any favours you can call in?
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there are a couple of general reviews ongoing. So long as they move along in a reasonably timely fashion the nomination is unlikely to be archived for lack of comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, can I please get an update on the nomination? There are 4 supports and 0 opposes. So I think the future status of this article is pretty clear, I presume at least. — Tom(T2ME) 15:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

edit
  • The first sentence would be more effective if "that was" was removed: "'Can't Get You Out of My Head' is a song recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her eighth studio album Fever (2001)". I don't think that arrangement would be grammatically incorrect since I have seen it on many articles.
  • I would change "Record label Parlophone" to "Parlophone Records" as natural disambiguation is usually preferable
  • I am not sure a link to Record chart in the lead is necessary. Just "The song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries" works too in my opinion.
  • Capitalizing the first letter in certification names, "Gold", "Platinum", etc. is optimal.
  • I don't think I understand your query here?
  • "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was Minogue's breakthrough US commercial success" -- While I personally agree, these two sentences being merged gives the impression this was the first time she reached the US top 10. Maybe try "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, Minogue's first top 10 in 13 years".
  • "Minogue has included it on the set lists of most of her concert tours" -- Most of is a specific claim that would require a source. "Various" or "many of" would be a safer word choice.
  • Were the decade-end lists it appeared on commercial or critical?
  • I would include the nationalities of Dennis and Davis while introducing them
  • Link: Loop (music)
  • "Three and a half hours" should have a nbsp. Same with "three minutes and fifty seconds"
  • "Dennis later said" -- Mention when this was
  • "a "la la la" hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part" -- by whom?
  • The source reviewer can decide whether this is appropriate to use for the song's composition, but it is odd it doesn't mention the critic's name
  • See if it might be possible to paraphrase some of the more lengthy quotes in the Composition and lyrical interpretation section.
  • Unsure why the other songs' composition is relevant here: "On the album, 16 of Minogue's earlier songs were re-worked and backed by an orchestra"
  • Relevant to distinguish between her regular disco style and something different she did with The Abbey Road Sessions'.
  • Some sentences appear to be in passive voice.
  • If I remember correctly, it was the ARIA Charts one which has been removed now. I will try to read the article again at a later date to catch more.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also finding the use of ARIA Charts as a source for composition details a bit iffy
  • The Herald Sun list being compiled in celebration of Minogue's 50th birthday isn't something worth noting in my opinion.
  • Minogue's own website should definitely not be used to source it reaching number one in every European country except Finland
  • I would remove the Victoria Beckham song's mention. Not relevant since CGYOOMH was not blocked by it.
  • Wouldn't use Minogue's website as a source for it becoming her best-selling US single since "The Loco-Motion" either.
  • "British fashion designer and Minogue's stylist William Baker" -- "Minogue's stylist" gives enough context so remove "British fashion designer"
  • Were there no regular critical reviews for the music video upon its initial release? The "Impact" section seems comprised entirely of retrospective events.
  • "The mash-up performance was ranked at number 40" -- Remove "mash-up" from this sentence as this is already clear in the preceding one.
  • I am pretty sure the Australian charts website can be edited by random people, it shouldn't be used to source Love at First Sight's inclusion as the B-side.
  • Is there no secondary source for her SNL performance? That is quite unlikely.
  • No, there is not. She performed this in 2002, and most of the sources from that time are dead. Same with the GMA performance. That's why I am citing the video. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second single from Fever", "the fourth single from Fever" -- These do not really contribute to the reader's understanding of the Live performances section.
  • "ninth studio album Body Language, ." -- Punctuation error.
  • The Live performances section relies a lot on primary sources. If these performances really didn't receive coverage in reliable secondary sources then they are being given undue weightage here. Just cover the notable ones.
  • Lee Barron is linked in the prose but not in the ref.
  • A MetroLyrics link would be beneficial in External links, since there is discussion of the song's lyrical content in the article.
A lot of efforts have clearly gone into the article. But I do take concern with the prose and there are some questionable sources used. A good source review will do wonders. Good luck.--NØ 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan. Thanks for your comments. I did most of them and also left some replies where I thought it was necessary to clarify things. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I will have to give it another read after the source review to see if I have any more comments. Good to see other reviewers will be posting feedback in the meantime.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figure there is no need for me to be nitpicky about the sourcing when someone who specializes in source reviews will take care of that anyway. Here are the final batch of comments before I support!
  • Link Demo (music) and Single (music) in the Writing and Release section.
  • Stick with either Parlophone Records or just Parlophone, I slightly prefer the former.
  • The New Rolling Stone Album Guide could be wikilinked, also shouldn't this be in italics rather than quotes (it is in the reference)?
  • "hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part by the music critics" -- "The" could be removed.
  • I would link One night stand as it might help some readers.
  • Are you sure Electronic music shouldn't be linked?
  • I see that the bit about the Orchestra album having 16 tracks is still here. Why?
  • I know neo-disco is linked before, but the first mention of disco should be linked separately. A link to Orchestra probably wouldn't hurt either, for those unfamiliar with the concept.
  • Optionally, the la la la hook could be introduced with a link to Non-lexical vocables in music.
  • PopMatters is italicized on most FAs I have seen.
  • The bit about the Pitchfork writer thinking that it "launched Minogue back into commercial relevance in the US" does not flow with the rest of the paragraph and doesn't sound like a very critical opinion either, could be omitted entirely or maybe incorporated in the Commercial performance section.
  • "The Guardian included the song on their list of The Best Number One Records" -- Assumably referring to UK number-ones? Should be mentioned.
  • Why is Top 40 being capitalized in "UK's Top 40"? It's not the name of the chart, so isn't it referring to just the #1-40 positions on the chart?
  • Introduce Michael Rooney as an American choreographer.
  • "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the music video for "Can't Get You Out of My Head"" -- At this point in the article it is already established which song's video is being talked about, so honestly even just "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the video" would work.
  • "In 2009, Minogue performed "a dancetastic rendition" of the song on the "For You, for Me" tour" -- Reframe this to explicitly convey Caulfield was the one who described it as "a dancetastic rendition", or alternatively paraphrase.

--NØ 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now support. My final query, which does not hinder my support, is, why are the tour names being put in quotation marks? This seems to be discouraged by WP:TOURDAB. Everything else looks great!--NØ 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

edit

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • Back in the day there were a lot of single releases, and the label heavily promoted the song, so that is why there are a lot of track listings. Btw, resolved the other queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • It's only used for a release format (namely downloads for some alternate mixes and a live performance). Amazon actually is fine for non-contentious details like that, distribution dates, and duration. Its customer reviews on the other hand should be avoided. While one is free to replace it with things like iTunes or Spotify, this is some food for thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Snuggums pointed out, Amazon is fine for formats and release dates. I don't think there is no need to be replaced with a link from Spotify or iTunes/Apple Music, since they are similar platforms as well. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

I've looked at this before, so hopefully get something up soon.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved
  • From the lead, "notable" from "is notable for its 'la la la' hook" is inappropriate POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Unlink "obsession" per WP:OVERLINK
  • The term "iconic" from "became an iconic fashion statement" is puffery
  • I don't feel "set lists of various of her concert tours" reads very well. Try "set lists of various concert tours" instead.
  • "has a more-noticeable musical arrangement"..... changed or altered would work better here
  • Much of the first paragraph from "Legacy" (except for the Rolling Stone bit) seems like it's better for critical reception when that seems to focus more on rankings and how much critics liked the song than it does impact, and same goes for awards.
  • Ref#9 and Ref#80 are missing thier release/publication dates (respectively 1 October 2001 and 8 January 2007)
  • Move the 28 December 2002 date from the title in Ref#171 to the "date" parameter
  • Don't italicize "Kylie.com" or News.com.au (which should have an uppercase "N" instead of a lowercase one)
  • While not the worst publication I've come across, I recommend using something stronger than Gigwise for the bit on "A Kylie Christmas".

Get through these (along with changing the caption for one image and using something else for the music video's jumpsuit), and it should be ready to become an FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, Thanks for your comments! I resolved all of them with the exceptions of the last one. I really could not find a more reliable source than Gigwise to reference her performance of the song at the 'A Kylie Christmas' concert. It seemed to be under-reported honestly. PS. do you like the new MV screenshot? — Tom(T2ME) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! File:Can't Get You Out of My Head MV screenshot.png has much better lighting, so media review passes and I also support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv

edit

Beginning one now! — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv Thanks a bunch! — Tom(T2ME) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1019520698.
  • Lacking a lot of linking consistency within references: either link the works/publishers on every occurrence, the first occurrence only, or none e.g. M Magazine is not linked on first occurrence but Sound on Sound is. (You might want to choose every occurrence because I think some of the certification templates will always link the publisher with no way to turn it off.) In ref #7, "[[Kylie Minogue|Kylie]].com" is not helpful as it doesn't link to information about the website.
  • "Ten Years Ago On 8Th September 2001" (ref #7) should have "8th" and "on" in lowercase (the latter per MOS:TITLECAPS).
  • Ref #15 should have en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) between the parts of the title.
  • I don't see how ref #49's statements like ""Can't Get You Out of My Head" would be the first of a slew of Minogue songs that would top the dance charts over the next few years" actually support the claim "It is Minogue's strongest commercial breakthrough in the US, a region where she had previously achieved limited success", nor why it (biography.com) is reliable. Nor do I see ref #50 supporting this claim (it's talking about a potential "break" in the future, not saying one happened).
  • Is it possible to get any more specific on ref #57 – a unique identifier for the episode (e.g. series and number), ideally a timestamp or a link to an official clip from the show with a timestamp? Similar question with refs #70,71,82 (though they give an exact date, which is better).
  • Why is The Guardian (ref #84) marked as subscription required?
  • Ref #85 has the wrong URL (doesn't match the title name).
  • Refs #127,129 (Romanian and South African charts) need a publisher name.
  • Inconsistency in refs #140–142,162 over whether to say "Australian Recording Industry Association" or "ARIA".
  • Spotchecks on 10% of refs: 9, 22, 25, 40, 53, 63, 82, 84, 86, 96, 102, 103, 116, 126, 134, 146, 158, 167. Have to take the 3 liner notes references on good faith, and only issues with the rest are those below:
    • I don't think #40 cites what it's used for (it doesn't mention "Not Such an Innocent Girl"), but the other two refs for that statement do, so I'd recommend just removal of #40.
    • Ref #53(c)'s "... subtly distorting her face but retaining her glamour" sounds a bit close to the original to me: "In doing so, her face subtly distorts, yet remains glamorous." It's specifically the word "subtly", which you could drop or replace and then I think we're off the border line of clopping.
    • Ref #63: "In it, Morley "turned the lonely drive..."" could attribute the quote to Morley, just because I didn't know from reading the sentence whether this was a biographer/critic talking about Morley, or him talking. So just "In it, Morley said he "turned the lonely drive..."".
    • Ref #84: can't see how it (or #85) support the claim, "She also included "Can't Get You Out of My Head" on the Kylie Summer 2015 tour". It doesn't mention the song name in the article.
    • Ref #126 has some cruft in the URL "&q=billboard+january+2002", that highlights the search terms you entered ("billboard january 2002") and can be removed.
Overall, the majority of these issues are about formatting, and the article already has a well-researched reliable bibliography with thorough representation of all major aspects of the topic and few to no factual errors. So once these problems are fixed, I'll be happy to support. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bilorv Thank you again for the source review. Much appreciated. I believe I resolved all of the queries including linking every work/publisher in the references and adding the air date for the Graham Norton episode. Feel free to double-check everything in order to see if I missed something. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After this small edit I'm ready to support. Great work! — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Can%27t_Get_You_Out_of_My_Head/archive3&oldid=1021193131"