Wikipedia:Peer review/Can't Get You Out of My Head/archive1

Can't Get You Out of My Head

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I think its prose is really close to the FAC standards, however, I would like to hear more of my peers' opinions in order to improve it before I submit the 2nd FAC nomination.

Thanks, — Tom^(T2ME) 09:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder As I'm busy these days, I'm placing this as a placeholder and will leave comments in the next few days. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick issues I found in the lede:

• "Lyrically, it discusses Minogue's obsession with her love interest and is known for its "la la la" hook." → I'm pretty sure the "la la la" hook is not notable as part of the song's lyrics

• It actually, it is very notable, since that's the most appealing part of the song and people know it by it. Just googling "Kylie la la la", the song is the first result. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I mean that the "la la la" hook is notable in itself, not necessarily notable lyrically (I'm pretty sure the rhythm/melody attached to the lyrics are also what made it notable, to clarify) — HĐ (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "became Minogue's highest-charting song in the country since "The Loco-Motion" (1987)" → this doesn't really matter

• Actually, it does matter since she has achieved very limited success in the US and had like a total of 4-5 songs that charted on the Hot 100, including "The Loco-Motion" and CGYOFMH (the most-successful ones) — Tom^(T2ME) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably something like "It was Minogue's breakthrough commercial success in the U.S." would sound better; I don't see the comparison with her previous hit single necessary, but that's just my personal preference, HĐ (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Any summary of the song's critical reception for the lede?

• I thought that was considered original research? — Tom^(T2ME) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need to include something like "The song was generally well received". Something like "Some critics praised the song's energetic atmosphere" should be fine and wouldn't violate OR to my knowledge, HĐ (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Minogue included the song on the set lists for all her concert tours, except the Anti Tour (2012)" → sounds like original research — HĐ (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, all of that is sourced in the live performances section. She performed it on eight tours, adding all of their names in the lead it will make things a little bit cluttery. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To a non-enthusiast like me the fact that Minogue didn't hold a concert tour until after the song's release (2001) is kind of unbelievable (she was huge previously so I'd expect some tours around the 90s). Probably something like "Minogue had included the song on the set lists for most of her concert tours from 2001 to 2019" would be better, HĐ (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• I feel like the Writing and release is quite bloated. Try simplify as much as possible. For example, I would rephrase this bit

• Davis then met with 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] Nelson was impressed by the song's "vibe" and felt it would please the "danceheads"

• To something like this (the same can be done with the rest of the section)

• Davis then met with Minogue's A&B executive, Jamie Nelson. Impressed by the song's upbeat production that he found appealing to clubgoers, Nelson booked it for Minogue to record

• I would prioritise the reliability of the Rolling Stone guide over OCC and Stereogum when it comes to the song's genre
• "the song has a tempo of 126 beats per minute while Minogue's vocal range spans from C4 to D5" — a) this contradicts the previous claim of the 125 bpm drum loop, which quite resonates with the increasing doubt over Musicnotes.com as a reliable source; b) I feel like oftentimes, we (including myself) overuse prepositions such as the while that I indicated (there's no such contradiction to use that preposition to begin with). Consider "and", which does no harm at all :)

• You are right. I removed the whole source. I am pretty sure its producers know more about the original bpm, rather than the EMI source. :) — Tom^(T2ME) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You can paraphrase "misplaced sections" as "fragmented sections" (without quotation marks). I think quotation marks should only be there when an attribution is given, otherwise paraphrasing is the way to go
• "Minogue expresses an obsession with an anonymous figure" — I don't think it's notable to point out "anonymous figure" as pop songs mostly do not mention who the person discussed is, except for diss tracks. "The song is about an obsession with whom The Guardian's Dorian Lansky described as "..." should be enough
• while Minogue's 1987 single "I Should Be So Lucky" had presented an optimistic romantic future — I think that this bit is the same for Minogue's 80s and 90s singles and not just "I Should Be So Lucky" specifically (the article said "forays such as 'I Should Be So Lucky'"). I'm understanding that CGYOMH represents a departure in Minogue's lyrical themes, from bright romance to darker perspectives, so I think it's better to omit the "I Should Be So Lucky" title and rephrase it to represent the overall shift in Minogue's songs
• "recorded for inclusion on her orchestral compilation album" → why not just "recorded for her orchestral compilation album"?
• "Minogue reworked" → pretty sure "reworking" is the job of the producers and not Minogue herself
• "more dramatic, fully fleshed out" → ditto with the quote thing that I raised above
• "13 years after the song's release," → I'd prefer "In a 2014 retrospective review"
• According to him, if a computer could make a perfect song it would sound like "Can't Get You Out of My Head". Adams concluded that the song sounds like it was not forcefully created, but rather "a happy accident" → Consider "Calling the song "a happy accident", Adams praised its natural flow and deemed it an epitome for a song programmed by a computer"
• "the song's orchestral treatment did not work well." → probably should elaborate, like "did not work well for the song's memorable electronic production"?
• "it is the country's 75th best-selling single of all time" → this record is not permanent, so I'd say "by [time] it was the..."
• Chart positions for Australia, the UK, and the US can be accompanied with certifications for better flow. — HĐ (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey HĐ! Thanks for the comments. I addressed all of them and I feel like they really helped with the prose improvement. Feel free to check the edits out. Also, looking forward to more comments. :) — Tom^(T2ME) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reaching back after quite some time... I'm now happy with the prose, except for the Live performances section. For the song's performance on some of Minogue's tours, there are some commentary (i.e. "According to Tim DiGravina of AllMusic, the performance was infused with an "almost tangible passion and fire"" or "According to Maura Johnston of The Village Voice, the version was inspired by Janet Jackson's "Black Cat" (1990)") that I find unnecessary. I would only include some commentary if the performance alone received widespread attention, or else I'd just use a summary style for all tour inclusions.

Also, "The mashup was dubbed "Can't Get Blue Monday Out of My Head"" → I'm not sure if "dubbed" is the right word here. Maybe "titled"? HĐ (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HĐ, I removed the commentary, however, I left some qualifiers for what kind of version she performed (a rock-oriented, country acoustic etc.), since the song had received various makeovers. Also, replaced 'dubbed' with 'titled'. :) 17:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Aditya Kabir

• "British fashion designer and Minogue's stylist William Baker described the choice of the outfit, saying it was "it was pure but kind of slutty at the same time." is in the legacy section, but it seems the sentence better belongs with the development of the outfit. Say what?
• "Various scenes in the video show Minogue's face "unusually" close to the lens of the camera, thus it "subtly distorts, yet remains glamorous". Shadforth felt the shot gave a "sort of sense of intimacy" and "strangeness", again drawing upon the suggestion of Minogue being an alien." (underline mine) - is that a tense confusion? If it is then there is more of that in the article.
• Is there a reason for writing "in both the Flanders and Wallonia regions of Belgium" instead of "in Belgium"? If yes, it is not apparent. If no, it may be a bit of detail that's not too necessary.
• I believe "simple lyrics" was identified by Everett True and probably should not be written in a
  WP:WIKIVOICE. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• ""Can't Get You Out of My Head" is a midtempo dance, dance-pop, techno-pop and neo-disco song" looks interesting. Is it like different critics identified it to be in slightly different genres? May be that needs a bit of clarification.
• Should it be "inclusion on" or "inclusion in"?
• "Davis used Cubasemusic software when he recorded the song on his Mac computer." How about "Davis recorded the song using Cubasemusic on a Mac computer"? Less wordy that way.
• "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." (underline mine) I guess it would read better if you used some pronouns. Also, instead of "began playing" you could just write "played" and instead of "began singing" just "sang". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG Aditya Kabir Thank you for the review so much! Apparently, you reviewed an old version of the article; it seems that some user reverted it and I just saw that. Would you mind taking another glance at the current and much improved prose-wise version? Thanks a lot! — Tom^(T2ME) 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That's a much better article. Taking a look at it as soon I can. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated! — Tom^(T2ME) 17:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Putting this up as a placeholder. Please ping if I do not put up comments by the end of Friday.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks
  Aoba47! — Tom^(T2ME) 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It may be more direct to revise this sentence, (In 2000, singer Cathy Dennis and songwriter Rob Davis had been brought together by Universal Publishing, to work on new material), as something like, (In 2000, Universal Publishing brought together singer Cathy Dennis and songwriter Rob Davis to work on new music). I exchanged "material" for "music" since I think the current wording is rather vague, and I have been advised in the past to avoid using words like "material", "work", etc.
• The first citation goes to the M Magazine main page. It appears the link is dead so I'd mark it as such so the archived version is the first link for readers to click on. I'd encourage you to look through the other citations to double-check this has not been done for other sites.

• How do I mark that? — Tom^(T2ME) 08:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done it for you. It is a very easy edit. All you have to do is change "url-status=live" to "url-status=dead".
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have a question about this part: (the vocals were laid down afterward). I looked at the citation to see if there was a more specific time frame given, and from my understanding, the vocals were laid down on the same day. I find "afterward" a little vague, and I'd be curious if it could be clarified that this was done on the same day and not days, weeks, months, etc. later.
• Apologies if I had already asked this, but I am curious if there was any reason why
  S Club 7 and Sophie Ellis-Bextor
  passed on this song. A reason may not have been given for either as it is common for singers to reject demoes, but I just wanted to ask about this.

• Yeah, there's no particular reason provided. I know that for S Club 7, apparently, Simon Fuller thought that the song would not fit them well. While for Sophie, no idea. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is what I thought. Thank you for the clarification!
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not think this sentence, (He also picked the song as a highlight on the album.), is necessary since this is already made pretty clear in the previous sentence, specifically in how he referred to the song as the "most interesting reboot" in the album.
• For this part, (one of the "standouts" on the album), I'd paraphrase "standouts" as it is not a necessary quote.
• I am uncertain about this part, (its arrangement makes up for the absence of dance beats vocal production), specifically "dance beats vocal production". It seems kind of like a word salad. Do you mean something like "dance beats and vocal production"?
• There is a typo in this part, (did not work well for the its memorable electronic production), specifically "the its memorable electronic production".
• You use short descriptive phrases to introduce most of the people except for Andrea True. Just curious about this as I think this is the only person without anything like that.
• I'd link
  B-side
  as I can see some readers not being familiar with the concept.
• Going off that, was there any commentary on this single's B-sides (i.e. "Boy" and "Rendezvous at Sunset")?

• No commentary at all. :/ — Tom^(T2ME) 08:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification.
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I removed it altogether since the song might have won more awards that we are aware of. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that makes sense to me.
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is great, thanks
  Aoba47! I think I applied all of the suggestions. Feel free to check it out. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again this week. I think that I have covered everything though with this read-through. If possible, I would greatly any comments on my
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Aoba47, thanks for fixing the reference! Awesome, gladly waiting to hear if you have some other comments :). Also, I will try to go over the article and leave some comments this week. — Tom^(T2ME) 17:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]