Jump to content

Talk:I Should Be So Lucky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleI Should Be So Lucky was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 18, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Comment

[edit]

If anyone has extra information on the song information section of this article, could you please add it? If the information regards both information of the song and chart information, please split the "Song information" section into "Chart performance" as well. Thank you. Winnermario 01:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

[edit]

If anyone has more information about the music video or can provide a detailed summary about the video than please do so. The section needs a lot of work done to it. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the greatest Aussie song ever!--Chino+Chino 1994`. (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chino+Chino 1994`. (talk • contribs) [reply]

Chart Performance

[edit]

That new chart performance table is extremely ugly and uninformative... --Waltgibson 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the table back to a previous version, which is easier to read and more informative. -- Underneath-it-All 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Pageant

[edit]

I am almost positive that in some American beauty pageant, all the contestants sung this song --- can anyone verify? That would be a nice trivia point to include.

Thanks

Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: checkY Fine after correcting two minor spelling errors myself.
2. Factually accurate?: ☒N There is one unreferenced statement marked as such in the "music video" section. This should be referenced, or reworded to comply with the given references, or removed, whichever is most appropriate. In addition, the "mixed reviews from music critics" statement in the opening paragraph needs to be expanded upon, with references and attribution; that is, it needs to state which music critics said what exactly, who criticised and who praised the song? If a lot can be said on this subject, may be more appropriate to simply expand on this to a brief overview in the introduction, and then further in a new subheading.
3. Broad in coverage?: ☒N Fine apart from the statement mentioned above lacking attribution.
4. Neutral point of view?: checkY Fine.
5. Article stability? checkY Fine.
6. Images?: checkY Fine.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — - Zeibura (Talk) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

[edit]
1. Well written?: checkY As before
2. Factually accurate?: checkY Fine after removal of unreferenced and unattributed statements.
3. Broad in coverage?: checkY Fine after removal of unattributed statement.
4. Neutral point of view?: checkY As before
5. Article stability? checkY As before
6. Images?: checkY As before

I'm pleased to say the review has now passed. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status.. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

[edit]

A lot of this article is unsourced. The entire "As a satire" section is referenced by one footnote that says, "The video was available on youtube before being removed". So the source no longer exists. Additionally, unless the satire is notable, there's no reason to mention it.

The Live peformance section is entirely unsourced, 3 chart positions are unsourced, and the "in pop culture" section is also unsourced.

This needs clearing up soon otherwise I'll GAR it as it clearly doesn't meet the criteria at the moment. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:I Should Be So Lucky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

This article most conspicuously fails to meet criteria 3a and 3b. On one hand there is nothing on critical reception; one of the most important aspects of an article such as this. On the other hand it goes into unnecessary detail on the satire and live performances, and this is also largely unreferenced. These issues must be addressed before the question of whether it can maintain its GA status can be considered. Lampman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covers and Performances

[edit]

I seem to recall that Kylie did a spoken word version of this with Nick Cave, I think at the Albert Hall, sometime in the late 90's. Kelvingreen (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in I Should Be So Lucky

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of I Should Be So Lucky's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "musicnotes":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of alternate cover

[edit]

Since the image, File:KylieIShouldBeSoLuckyOZCover.png, has removed by one editor citing WP:NFC, without saying how this image specifically violates it, I am starting a discussion here so that the image is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The current consensus for alternate covers in infoboxes, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover that can then be tied to Template:Infobox single, are that they pass WP:NFCC if the alternate cover is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion." This alternate cover is significantly different from the original cover and is widely released in Australia, which is the home country of the singer, and therefore passes the criterion. Aspects (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the alternate cover is totally different and not identical to the 1st single cover.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

My question is if the article calls the song an "undisputed classic" why is it claimed there argument amongst critics in the previous paragraph as to the merits of the song? Undisputed classic should mean it was not on any critics "worst" lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.172.254 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre confusion?

[edit]

I am confused about the genre of this song, as people keep changing or adding genres to it. It is not even on one of the list of songs by genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Should Be So Lucky. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on I Should Be So Lucky. 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) 10:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I Should Be So Lucky. 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) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Should Be So Lucky. 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) 18:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces

[edit]

I have checked and solitary opinion pieces in local newspapers are not appropriate citations for facts on Wikipedia. It is fine to insert in an article that [name author] opined that [insert opinion] but not to list the opinion as proven.

(86.139.196.16 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Should_Be_So_Lucky&oldid=1207683975"