This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Kinks, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.The KinksWikipedia:WikiProject The KinksTemplate:WikiProject The KinksThe Kinks articles
The guitar riff does not only bear resemblance to songs recorded after it. Galt MacDermots Composition "Hare Krishna / Be-In" for the Musical "Hair" contains a very similar vocal pattern. In the 1967 Off-Broadway recording of that song, one year prior to The Kinks Song, at approx. 1:21 min. the cast sings "take trips, get high..." in that melody. The often mentioned likeness of Green Day's "Warning" is actually closer to MacDermots piece, since the melody walks up and down the scale using the same progression: MacDermot - D, E, F#, G, A, H, C and down again. Green Day A, H, C#, D, E, F#, G and down again. Whereas the Kinks continue the progression upwards: E, F#, G#, A, H, C#, D, E, F#, G, F#.
The first para of the lead is poorly ordered; the second sentence should mention Ray Davies wrote and sung it as well as the recording year, followed by the release sentence and finally comp and lyrics
Is there any guidance anywhere on this? It feels to me more like a personal preference. I think it makes sense to have it flow chronologically – who wrote it, what they wrote it to be about, then when and how it was recorded.
Regarding the second sentence, I would suggest adding "the song was recorded in May 1968" after the comma following Ray Davies
See above.
"its lyrics describe the experience of" → "The lyrics describe the experience of" unless it is merged with the comp sentence, then depending on the context you could use its lyrics
Changed to "the song's lyrics".
"its cheerful sound is defined" → "The song's cheerful sound is defined"
"Decades after its composition" are you sure this is the correct phrasing, rather than decades after completion or something similar?
There was another ambiguity there, so I just reworded the whole sentence. How is this? The Kinks' principal songwriter, Ray Davies, reflected in 2002 that when he wrote "Picture Book" he did not initially intend for the track to be a Kinks song given the personal content.
Why? The Songs WikiProject doesn't have guidance, but the Albums WikiProject just titles these sections WP:PERSONNEL. This is also used at many song FAs, like "I've Just Seen a Face" or "Hey Jude". Also, these aren't credits, it's a listing provided by some of the band's biographers. Like most '60s songs, the actual credits are pretty thin and don't extend beyond naming the producer and songwriter.
On hold until all of the issues are fixed after this quick review! --K. Peake 10:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Kyle Peake. You have a great sense for simple, effective wording. Tkbrett (✉) 13:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett Kudos to you for the quick response, however the lead should be re-ordered still because writing and recording happened first therefore should come before comp and lyrics. Also, Davies' full name doesn't need to be used at the start of the second para of recording since he is the last of the family mentioned by here and avoid using the surname twice there to be less repetitive. Finally, if there's sub-headings, shouldn't you use the title credits and personnel? --K. Peake 15:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I rewrote the lead paragraph as suggested and fixed the MOS:SAMESURNAME mention. I think per the reasons I mentioned above, personnel is preferred – it's also done that way at the FAs "Hey Jude" and "Something", even with the subheadings being used. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓Pass now, I am fully acceptive of the personnel title after you justified with the FAs and fab job on fixing the issues! --K. Peake 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I appreciate the review! Tkbrett (✉) 16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed after this quick review! --K. Peake 10:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)