Talk:I Should Be So Lucky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I Should Be So Lucky article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	I Should Be So Lucky has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Portal	I Should Be So Lucky is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music. See also P:AUSMUSIC.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is part of WikiProject Kylie Minogue, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of Kylie Minogue and related topics. Talk to us. Kylie Minogue-related Articles in need of attention. This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

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)

Contents 1 Music video 2 Chart Performance 3 American Pageant 4 Good article nomination on hold 4.1 Second review

[edit] Music video

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)

[edit] Chart Performance

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

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)

[edit] American Pageant

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

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

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?: Y 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?: Y Fine.

5. Article stability? Y Fine.

6. Images?: Y 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)

[edit] Second review

1. Well written?: Y As before

2. Factually accurate?: Y Fine after removal of unreferenced and unattributed statements.

3. Broad in coverage?: Y Fine after removal of unattributed statement.

4. Neutral point of view?: Y As before

5. Article stability? Y As before

6. Images?: Y 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)