Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did It Again (Kylie Minogue song)/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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) 16:23, 20 September 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Australian recording artist Kylie Minogue. After conducting several sources of research, I believe the article is at good standards and, like the rest of the Impossible Princess tracks, they all have verified and reliable resources and references. I did conduct a peer review (without the use of Wikipedia), and it seemed to be fine. I hope I can achieve a featured article for the Impossible Princess articles and strive for a FAC topic nomination in the future. Thank you for your time. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose

Dear nominator, I haven't given a full read of the article (hence the weak oppose), but it seems to me that it easily fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1.b and 1.c. The information I got from this suggests there's more to the story than what we have come up. Also, this is a song in the 1990s released by an established, well-known recording artist. I assume there are offline resources that may provide more information. Also, please check the facts. Contrary to WP article saying the single spent 5 weeks on the UK chart, it's actually 8 weeks per here. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this, lest I forget. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have to agree with the above; the research seems to be lacking for FA purposes. Print music publications and Minogue biographies will certainly cover the song, and it may even pop up in the odd work on the history of pop music. Especially for a song from the 1990s, an article basically reliant on web publications and primary sources is probably not going to be ready for FAC, even if it makes a solid GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking my oppose at this time as you have certainly made an effort to deal with my concern (as well as the YouTube comment below, which was to be my follow-up concern). I appreciate this, and will make an effort to have a fuller look through the article later. If I haven't gotten to this by Sunday, please feel free to remind me on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed and comment. Thank you for the responses. I have cleaned up the article a bit and have added some offline sources into the article with viable information. However, some of the links in the article are adapted from tabloids, magazine, books that do not have any current existence (physically). The references below are the only offline sources (some have been found online, but are published offline too) I have found to support the song, and added them to the article with the information (the rest are either website links or CD information);
  • Aspinall, Julie (2 June 2008). Kylie. London, United Kingdom: John Blake Publishing. ISBN 1843586932.
  • Unknown author (7 October 1997). "Kylie Minogue Exclusive Interview". Company. IKN 8 Magazine.
  • "Impossible Princess Reviews, by Kylie Minogue". Adapted by kylie.co.uk. Archived from the original on 11 October 2006. (This website gives references to the tabloids Who (magazine) and Western Australia).
  • Smith, Sean (13 March 2014). Kylie. London, United Kingdom: Simon & Schuster Ltd. pp. 138–139. ISBN 978-147-113-5804. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  • Paoletta, Michael (22 November 2003). Billboard Picks Music. Billboard. p. 43. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  • Flick, Larry (4 April 1998). "Minogue makes mature turn on Deconstruction set". Billboard: 18. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  • "Reviews from Music Week". Music Week. Adapted by kylie.co.uk. Archived from the original on 10 October 2006. Retrieved 10 September 2015. (This website gives reference to the tabloid Music Week).
  • Baker, William; Minogue, Kylie (7 November 2002). Kylie: La La La. London, United Kingdom: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-73439-6.
  • Whiting, Frances (26 April 1998). "Princess Kylie on the Move". Adapted by kylie.co.uk. Archived from the original on 10 October 2006. Retrieved 10 September 2015. (This website gives reference to the tabloid Sunday Mail (Australia)).
  • Stone, Steven. "Female Force: Kylie Minogue". Bluewater Comics: 4. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  • Barron, Lee (2013). "Social Theory in Popular Culture". Palgrave Macmillan. p. 66. Retrieved 10 September 2015. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment from Azealia911
  • All seven YouTube videos that you cite in references are unreliable. I'm always resistant to using video's from even verified accounts on YouTube (Here's an example, see the translucent tick next to 'BBC') but fan-shot videos from concerts and unofficial archive TV uploads are most certainly unreliable in regular articles, let alone featured articles. I'm quite surprised they got through a GA review too. Azealia911 talk 13:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Azealia911: Thank you for informing me this. I researched archives and webpages to support the performances that referenced the YouTube links, but the only ones I found (from reliable websites) were The National Lottery Show and MTV. As a result, I have removed the YouTube links and the sentences due to a lack of archive evidence to support it. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • Why "drum instruments"? There's no other mention of drums in the article.
  • "After the poor reception of the album's lead single "Some Kind of Bliss", British media started to publish various rumors and stories that revolved around Minogue's private life and public image." What album? Are these two claims supposed to be related in some way?
  • "Interviewed by Company magazine that year, she was questioned on her weight and the song, and she explained "'It's a bit of a girl's song, with me telling myself off and never learning my lesson, particularly with men. It's me looking myself in the eye and saying "You fool, stop being too clever and over-neurotic.'".[3]" Your quote marks are all over the place
  • "She had begun writing the song herself when tabloids released negative stories about her, but Anderson and Seaman assisted in re-writing the song. As a result, they re-wrote the original lyrics and Minogue said it told a "different meaning".[4] The song discusses telling herself off when she does not learn from her past mistakes." This doesn't read well.
  • "Produced by Brothers in Rhythm" In the lead, you say that Minogue was also a producer. Also, I'm not clear what it's got to do with the rest of the sentence
  • "Instrumentally, Greg Bone and Anderson played the guitars" They played the guitars instrumentally?
  • What are "disclosed instruments"?
  • ""Did It Again" is a pop rock song that lasts a duration of four minutes and twenty-two seconds on the album." KISS!
  • "Sputnikmusic said" Perhaps better to avoid personification? (Also, did they really misuse that apostrophe, or is that your mistake? Either way, it should probably be removed. And, for that matter, what on earth does "could have which" mean? Unless there's been a copy/paste error or something, I'd remove the whole quote as a mess of bad writing.)
  • "commented about" You don't comment about things; you comment on things, or that something. You speak or write about things.
  • "since the Stock, Aitken and Waterman period" ??
  • "time that Stock, Aitken and Waterman ever dreamed of" More terrible grammar in your quotes- are these mistakes introduced in the copying process?
  • "was another track from" You can't really tell us it was "another" without telling us the first.
  • "a blend of ofsitar and" ??
  • "Reviewing her compilation album Greatest Hits 87–97 (2003), Michael Paoletta from Billboard magazine viewed the composition as progressive rock." This feels tacked-on.

I'm going to stop there. I fixed some silly mistakes but probably missed some. I'm afraid I'm going to have to reinstate my oppose- this is not FAC ready. It needs some close attention from a copyeditor. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Okay, thank you for that review. I will ask a copyeditor to help out on this article to improve its status. Would there be any chance of closing this nomination please, so I can work on it furtherer? Thank you. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.