Talk:Phenomenal Cat

Phenomenal Cat has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Phenomenal Cat appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the song "Phenomenal Cat" was misspelt as "Phenominal Cat" on the original album sleeve?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phenomenal Cat.

Wikipedia

Songs

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

The Kinks (inactive)

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

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phenomenal Cat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check - I reviewd the few non-zero matched found by Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns. Similarly, no concerns regarding the offline sources I saw.
Media - no images, which is unsurprising. The use of the short audio sample appears to be justified.

Composition

"though the details of the revelation are not revealed" - would probably benefit from a bit of tweaking, e.g "... revealed to the listener" or "are not disclosed" ?

I went with your first suggestion.

the use of "professor", albeit in lower-case, would probably be OK in American English, but in British English it denotes a senior academic rank and, I think, might fall foul of MOS:CREDENTIAL. How about something like "scholar" or "academic" instead?

Changed to "academic".

Recording

Optionally, a bit of background could be provided. (From my own experience, it's a bit tricky trying to add something about the background for each song on an album without being very repetitive, but there may be some readers who would appreciate a bit more background here.)

Background for what in particular?

I was thinking of the sort of contextual detail found at Village Green (song), but the article can be a GA without such an addition. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"distinct flute introduction" - is ths meant to be "distinctive"?

Fixed.

Release and reception

'misspelled "Phenominal Cat"' - Rogan (2015) p.361 has "Pheonomical Cat", but doesn't specifically say that this was on the sleeve; please double-check Miller (2003)

In his 1998 book, Rogan writes it was misspelled as "Pheonominal" and, as you point out, "Pheonomical" in his 2015 book. Actually, both of those are misspellings of the actual misspelling. Miller is correct that the original album sleeve writes it as "Phenominal".

Excellent. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

No issues.

References

Hinman (1994) is OK per discussion at Talk:Four More Respected Gentlemen/GA1.
Looks like the Kitts book is probably from a small press, but looking at his profile page, also seems fine even if a case of WP:SPS

Yes, as you point out, Kitts has been published by a reputable publisher for other work and he is a real academic. Scholar Carey Fleiner also writes this in the further reading section of her 2017 book The Kinks: A Thoroughly English Phenomenon: "A collection of analytical and academic essays ... [it] is a good read for fans who want some depth to their interpretation and understanding of the context behind the Kinks' work." (p. 204)

Other sources seem fine.
Spot check on Altham (1968) - OK.
Spot check on "thinks the song is a satire ... Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." - OK
Spot check on "thinks the song resembles a children's story or Victorian fairy tale" - OK

Infobox and lead

"their 1968 album, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society (1968)"- repetition of "1968"; optionally, add in "sixth studio album".

Fixed.

You could mention in the lead that Ray Davies produced the track too.

Done.

"It is one of several character studies on Village Green" - feels to me like it should also be in the body and sourced there, but I'm open to hearing counterarguments.

Not sure why it wasn't. I must have removed a sentence and not realized it. I've added it under the interpretation section.

"Commentators have likened the song to children's music or Victorian fairy tales and have sometimes described it as an example of psychedelia, though others dispute this." - I think this could be tidied up a bit. (e.g. not all commentators have "sometimes described it as"; also, re: "others dispute this" - I think only Miller is cited in opposition. (Again, feel free to defend the existing formulation.)

Yeah, it's really only Rogan that mentions children's music, but he and Miller both compare it to Victorian literature. I've changed it to this: Commentators have sometimes likened the song to Victorian fairy tales and have often described it as an example of psychedelia.

Thanks for another review BennyOnTheLoose. Tkbrett (✉) 23:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article and the responses. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:12, 27 October 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the song "Phenomenal Cat" was misspelt as "Phenominal Cat" on the original album sleeve? Source: Miller, Andy (2003). The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society. 33⅓ series. New York City: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-1498-4. page 42 , https://www.discogs.com/release/1629778-The-Kinks-The-Kinks-Are-The-Village-Green-Preservation-Society/image/SW1hZ2U6MjQ2NDMyMTA=
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monogem

Improved to Good Article status by Tkbrett (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Onegreatjoke, review follows: article was passed as GA on 27 October; article is well written and cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources for the subject; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck on sources; hook fact is interesting enough for me, mentioned in the article and checks out to the Google Books snippet of the page cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]