The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where do we begin ... ah, probably where I always have. You might know the drill by now; let me get the easy stuff out of the way first
Two images. One is the infobox's cover art, which is acceptable under virtually all cases. NFC rationale checks out. The other is a picture of the song's namesake - its source states that it is released under a CC licence. Both are used appropriately; we're good on this part.
While short, the article does have a barebones structure, with the most essential sections I would expect a song article to have. Background, music, and release
However, I do have a query on whether sources cover anything about the composition apart from the instruments? Chords, keys, tempos, tones, or stuff like that?
Unfortunately this is all I've got. While I'm often spoiled writing Beatles articles – I once heard Mark Lewisohn say there are literally several thousand books written about them – the literature surrounding the Kinks doesn't measure up. The books there are rarely discuss musicological aspects but instead focus on lyrics. In this case, there's hardly even much of that.
Focused and never goes on unnecessary tangents. The paragraphs for each section are relevant to the respective topics.
Article has a reference section formatted appropriately for a GA candidate. Notes look fine, and so does the external links section. No sources here have red flags in terms of unreliability.
"released on a non-album single" shouldn't "on" be "as" instead? My understanding of singles is that they are a type of release, not a medium like a CD or vinyl or cassette.
I can't speak to the specifics, but I've seen "on" used in this case on a lot of well written song articles (e.g. "Something", "Old Brown Shoe" and "The Inner Light").
I am not sure about this, but "chaotic" reads like an opinion here being used as fact. Perhaps we can use a close synonym like "disorganised" instead to remove the POV-ness?
I reworked these ones to make it clearer these are Rogan's opinions.
I just chopped a bit out. Tkbrett (✉) 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More of a nitpick if anything, by the way. "Having played on each of the Kinks' studio albums since The Kink Kontroversy in 1965, session keyboardist Nicky Hopkins contributed piano" -> is his track record with the band relevant enough that we introduce that information before we namedrop him?
I think the background is important here. I read one band biographer characterize Hopkins' session playing as one of the defining features of the Kinks' sound in the 1960s. It reminds me of Ian Stewart and the Rolling Stones. Neither was an "official" member even though they each played on virtually all of their respective band's recordings. Is your objection here that you think the sentence ought to be reworded?
No objections with considering the background important. My suggestion is not so much to reword the sentence as much as to rearrange the information. To me it feels more natural if you give the background after you namedrop.
"Additional contributions included Mellotron" reads awkwardly. Perhaps change "contributions" to "instruments"
I think the issue with using "instruments" there is that handclaps are included in the list, and it seems strange to me to list those as an instrument.
Fair assessment tbh. I suppose a better approach would be to change "Hopkins contributed piano" to "Hopkins used the piano"
"Used the piano" seems vague. How about simply "Hopkins... played piano"?
That is better
"The song featured on the label's test pressings of the album, planned for a late 1968 release in the US as Four..." add a "which was" before "planned". Right now the sentence reads like the song was the one planned for release as FMRG
Added.
"though" and "ultimately" convey the same meaning, and either word can be removed
Removed "ultimately".
The phrase "though it was ultimately not issued" is still there, however
Ah, fixed.
Shouldn't the "the" in "God Save the Kinks" be in lowercase?
Yeah, for some reason I thought that how it was stylized would take precedence, but both title casing and MOS:THEBAND means it ought to be lower-case.
"only shortly beforehand" -> the "only" there seems extraneous
The sentence as a whole can be trimmed to "Band biographer Andy Miller hypothesises that the Kinks may have overdubbed additional parts for the song in anticipation of its inclusion on the compilation album."
Done.
"overdubbed" is wikilinked at the second instance, not the first
Fixed.
"reflected on his surprise at hearing his own playing on the B-side" there is a word missing there
Do you mean it ought to be "bass playing"?
If that was his contribution to "Berkeley Mews", sure
"The song has since been included..." I wonder if there is any reason "has since been" is used here instead of the simpler "was". The tense would be consistent with the remainder of the paragraph, too
A few more concerns remain! Thanks for being a good sport. I promise these are my last prose concerns - in the article, you often interchange between "Pye Records's" with the S and "Pye Records'" without the S, as well as "Pye Records" and then merely "Pye". We can be more consistent here. Plus, the "in particular" in "in particular, he focuses..." is extraneous. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 12:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Your Power. It should be "Pye Records's" by MOS:'S. I've also just switched it so it's "Pye Records" at first mention and simply "Pye" for all subsequent mentions. Also cut the "in particular". Tkbrett (✉) 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Round 3
This batch of comments focuses on spotchecking to check for any copyvio or OR. I will be looking at the three sources linked to the Internet Archive
The one time Kitts (2008) is cited ... it is used to back up the information around TNaI's use for "God Save the Kinks". Source says exactly what the text says. No problems here
Ditto for Mendelsohn (1985). I assume that Hinman (2004) covers the bit about the campaign's relation to the performance ban? "journalists, radio program directors and disc jokeys" has the same verbiage as the source, but there is no possible way to paraphrase it so I give it a pass. By the way, "jockey" is misspelled here.
Rogan (2015) is used to cite the existence of the 2004 reissue and the 2014 anthology box set. p. 731 says the song is on disc 4 of the box set, and p. 734 says it appears on discs 2 and 3 of the reissue. No problems here.
Looking at a sample of the cited sources, I do not see anything that tips me off wrt original research! Well done. As for copyright violations, plagiarism, or the like. While I noticed one phrase that was word-for-word what one source used, it was not indicative of any glaring copyright problems, as I explained above.
In short, well done on another small yet quality article! Once the prose issues have been addressed, I will be happy to pass this review Looking forward to the "Wish You Were Gay" review! Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
· 
· 
· 
Looking forward to the "Wish You Were Gay" review! Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"