Talk:Happy Together (song)

AllMusic

I have added the Allmusic.com article about the song as a link. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood all the points. Could you extend the hold for 1 week? Lovemike5 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Bubblegum

Would this song be considered to be bubblegum? 67.188.172.165 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ads

It does appear in Heineken ads .. 3-4 years ago I think. In the ads there a young woman trying to pick a Heineken 6-pack from the top shelf, but she can't make it, it's too high. So there's a young man comes see the woman and pick that up, and we all believe that he will give that to her .. but no, the beer is too hard to resist, he take it himself and go :)

French Ad

I saw an ad for a brand of Orange Soda when I was in France, anyone know what it is? The song was being sung by none other than the Soviet Army, which made it pretty hilarious to see as an American, as it was about the last thing I'd expect. --66.30.56.164 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Love

The Song called happy together by the turtles this song has been in many movies such as shreck, freaky friday,and the simpsons movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.173.146 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference

The link in reference 1 to BMI's top 100 songs does not have the list of songs - it's just a page with some highlights from the list. That article does not mention the Turtles song and has no obvious way to access the list.

New Adition

Filter sang it in the end of The Stepfather remake 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.114.204 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Weezer

I can't find any reliable source that verifies that Weezer covered this song. I'm guessing that it's confused with Simple Plan's cover. Jeff d kirby (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Band lineup

The article needs to give the band's lineup for the recording of this song seeing that the group had several changes of personnel.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Performance" needs edit or clarification

"When performing the song on television, Mark Volman commonly "played" a different instrument not present in the song for each appearance. On Ed Sullivan he "played" a trumpet,on the Smothers Brothers a piano."

There is most definitely a rather prominent trumpet part on the original recording, as well as a very short piano figure. Volman was quite obviously not actually playing the instruments in the video performances cited, but such instruments were "present" in the music they were miming to.

146.115.179.142 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What you say is correct, and is confirmed by AllMusic. I've removed it entirely for now. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Happy Together (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110518160016/http://advertfan.com/2008/11/new-2009-ford-focus-happy-together-commercial/ to http://advertfan.com/2008/11/new-2009-ford-focus-happy-together-commercial/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Happy Together (song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011000110/http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=4567 to http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=4567
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111124/http://50.6.195.142/archives/60s_files/1967YESP.html to http://50.6.195.142/archives/60s_files/1967YESP.html

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Happy Together (song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161221093429/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RECORDING_COPYRIGHT_RULING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-20-16-50-38 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RECORDING_COPYRIGHT_RULING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-20-16-50-38

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) 00:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How I met your mother

I remember it occuring in at least episode of How I Met Your Mother. Is this correct? 188.99.187.149 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced composition information

Under the "Composition" section, the following information was found: "The song is in the key of F-sharp minor, with the chorus in the F-sharp Mixolydian mode. The song ends on a Picardy third."

Was not able to find a source for this information, but it is interesting, so am leaving it here in case someone else can find a ref for it. I replaced it with sourced information; however it appears that the original published key is E minor, not F# minor, so that part appears to be incorrect. Big universe (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

4/25/19 update: Please add any info regarding finding a reliable source for the original published key (whether E minor, F# minor, or anything else), to the section below titled "Repeated addition of unsourced info RE: original key". Thanks. Big universe (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not in any of these movies lol

Half the movies it's apparently in are completely unsourced and I do not ermember thatMaskettaman (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced info RE: original key

Various editors, including both IPs and named accounts, have been repeatedly adding the same unsourced info regarding the key in which the song was originally published. The sourced info states that the original key is in E minor; a series of editors continues to change this to F# minor, but without citing any reliable source to support this. F# minor is a transposition which may be present in some recordings, but it is not the original published key, per the source (click on the button "Transpose (7)").

The text added to the article by "User:Sleepypie" states: "A simple comparison of the original recording and a real or virtual keyboard reveals that "Happy Together" was written in the key of F# minor". This is original research. Similarly, the edit summary by "User:Michael.H.Holmes" declares that "The actual recording is in F# minor, determined by listening to the recording", which is also original research.

The article originally stated that the song was written in F# minor. That info was added on 11 May 2014 by Taohinton; "mixolydian mode" info added here by an IP editor. However, the info was unreferenced, so I removed it from the article on 4 November 2018 and transferred it to this talk page for possible sourcing (see above, section "Unsourced composition information"). It was replaced with the sourced E minor info. These edits commenced shortly thereafter:

1. 9 November 2018 by Sleepypie; reverted here
2. 13 November 2018 by 2605:ad80:0:1679:490e:cd8f:539f:f0f5; reverted here
3. 20 March 2019 by 58.104.205.93; reverted here
4. 25 April 2019 by Michael.H.Holmes; reverted here
5. 24 May 2019 by 131.150.141.47; reverted here

If a reliable source is found for the claim that the original published key is F# minor (or anything else), please discuss it here. Thanks. Big universe (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved discussion: E minor, not F# minor, is original published key

The Wikipedia article being discussed is about the Turtles' recording of Happy Together. What is relevant here is the key in which it was performed, not the key of first "publication" of the song. The article is not about printed sheet music, it's about a particular recording of the song. In the context of this article, it doesn't matter what key the song was originally published in, even if we could determine that. As far as that goes, the reference to a sheet music copy that can be purchased at Musicnotes.com doesn't seem like a reliable source for the key of first publication. It's worth noting that that version can be purchased in various keys, including F# minor. The only reliable reference for the key of the recording is the recording itself. I haven't found any other sources on the web that identify the key of the recording, although maybe someone else can. I think it's a shame that the article should state incorrectly that the song is in E minor when it clearly is not, simply because there's an irrelevant "reference" out there on the web. Anyone who has access to the recording and a pitch reference can tell that the song is in F# minor, it's not a matter for debate. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) One more comment: I'd be happier to see the "Composition" section of this article deleted, rather than leaving the incorrect key and vocal range information in there. Multiple editors have made the claim that the song is in F# minor for a simple reason: the song is in F# minor! Let's at least delete the incorrect information, even if you are unwilling to trust the multiple people who have listened to the song and determined the actual key. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I've found an online source to corroborate the F# minor claim. I will submit a new edit of the article this weekend, and hopefully put an end to this question. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I have just updated the article again, this time with a reference corroborating the claim that the song is in F# minor. My edit states that the recording "is performed in" F# minor. The text which I replaced says that the song "is written in" E minor. I don't know that there's any way to tell what key the song was originally written in, and in any case that is not relevant to this article, which is about the Turtles' recording of the song. That recording is in F# minor. I removed and did not replace the text about the vocal range and the tempo. Those could easily be determined, but apparently a reference is needed and I do not know of a reliable reference for that information. (The version that is available on Musicnotes.com states a vocal range, but that is based on the key that their version is published in and would not agree with the actual vocal range on the recording.) Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC) @Michael.H.Holmes: While I understand that you are concerned that the current information in the article is incorrect, it appears from your edits and several comments above that you will need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's (WP) core content policies. These specific policies are: 1) WP:V (verifiability)/WP:RS (reliable sources); 2) WP:NOR (no original research)/WP:SYNTH (no synthesis); and 3) WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Please see the info at the links in the previous sentence for more info. These policies are in place to ensure that WP only contains verifiable information from reliable sources, rather than information that is, for example, fabricated or a matter of personal opinion. All editors are required to understand and comply with these policies in order to edit WP. It will take some time to prepare info and links to help you edit in alignment with Wikipedia's policies, as well as explain how your comments and edits are in conflict with these policies. I'm a little short on time right now; but since there is no hurry to change the information in the article, and since it is much more important to make sure that any changes or additions are verifiable, please allow a few days for me to get this info together for you. Also, please wait for input here, before adding back into the article the disputed info regarding the key F# minor (though you are of course free to make other, undisputed, changes). Similarly, any source you are considering using to support this disputed change should be placed here first, for discussion and vetting. Thanks. Big universe (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) OK, I will wait to hear from you before attempting another edit. I'll admit that I jumped in with both feet without researching WP policies. It is frustrating -- I'm only trying to correct an obvious error -- but I'll be patient, and thank you for your patience as well. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC) @Michael.H.Holmes: No problem, I'm happy to help. It can be difficult to wade through all the policies and such, and sometimes (for better or worse) the only way to discover the most important ones is to be bold--and learn from the revert, when there is one. But you don't have to halt all editing on WP, just please don't add the F# minor bit until we can find and vet a good source (if one exists). I will post again in a few days, but in the meantime, please also read the core editing policies I linked above; mastery of these concepts will be of great benefit to you here. Cheers, Big universe (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC) I have read the Wikipedia core policies and procedures, and I believe I understand why you objected to my edits. I'm ready to suggest new text here, with references, which I will do below. First though I want to address the existing reference that claims the song "was originally published" in the key of E minor. That reference is: source (click on the button "View Full Product Details". The Musicnotes.com website offers several different arrangements of Happy Together for different instruments and/or singers. The arrangement for Piano/Vocal/Guitar is referenced above, and if you click on "View Full Product Details" you will see the text "Original Published Key: E minor". Here is a link to the arrangement for 2-Part Choir + Piano: source (click on the button "View Full Product Details". If you click on "View Full Product Details" you will see "Original Published Key: F minor". Here is a link to the arrangement for Guitar Recorded Version: source (click on the button "View Full Product Details". If you click on "View Full Product Details" you will see "Original Published Key: F# minor". Et cetera. There are still more versions, in still more different keys. The meaning of "Original Published Key" on the Musicnotes.com website appears to be the original published key of the particular arrangement that is being purchased. It doesn't identify the original published key of the piece. The Musicnotes.com reference has been misused to identify the key of the original publication of Happy Together. It's an understandable mistake, but clearly not correct. I have so far only found one reference on the web that explicitly states a key for the song (F# minor). However, the remaining members of The Turtles maintain a website, and on that site they make available a lyric sheet with chords: source. The other source is a website created by a music teacher, with information for music teachers: source. Here is the text that I would propose: "The Turtles website provides a page with lyrics and chords for "Happy Together" which lists the first chord of the song as F# minor and the last chord as F# major. An analysis of the song by music educator Emily Scott Langerholc states the following: "This song moves between parallel keys, switching almost instantaneously between F# minor (where it begins) to F# major as the chorus begins."" Using this text, we do not claim that the song is in F# minor, but instead provide a quote from an online source. This is backed up by the reference to the chords available on The Turtles' own website. Finally, I'd like to say that a valid option would be to remove the Composition section of the article entirely. I think I've demonstrated that the source for the E minor key is not valid. If you don't find the references for the F# minor key satisfactory, then simply removing the incorrect information would be an improvement. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC) References @Michael.H.Holmes: I'm very glad you've looked over the documentation. It's quite late here right now, but will look into what you've posted, and hopefully have some comments for you sometime tomorrow. Thanks, Big universe (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) @Michael.H.Holmes: Ok, here are my comments. I'll cover the policy issues first, then explain what you're seeing on the Musicnotes site. WP:BLOGS When I reverted your second attempt to add the F# minor info here, I noted that the source you used (which is the same source you linked above) is a blog, and thus not in accordance with WP:BLOGS, the policy RE citing blogs and other self-published sources. Your source is still problematic. WP:BLOGS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." (emphasis mine) The author of the blog says she's a teacher; even if she's a teacher, we have no way of knowing whether she's an acceptably competent one. Either way, she's not a recognized subject matter expert, per WP:BLOGS. For example, Mark Lewisohn is considered an expert on the Beatles. If he had a blog, his blog posts (about the Beatles) could be used as a reference for the relevant Beatles articles on WP. WP:SYNTH You said: Using this text, we do not claim that the song is in F# minor, but instead provide a quote from an online source. This is backed up by the reference to the chords available on The Turtles' own website. This is basically the definition of WP:SYNTH (no synthesis). The information has to be explicitly stated by the reference(s); we can't provide refs and then leave it up to the reader to "draw their own conclusion"—especially when that conclusion isn't obvious to most readers, who are unfamiliar with music theory/analysis. Musicnotes: "Original published key" vs. transpositions/arrangements The two versions you linked to, for 2-Part Choir + Piano, and for guitar, are arrangements of the Turtles' original song. Neither version is the original song itself. (There are 19 total available arrangements: the original Turtles version + 18 variations. The Turtles' version is the first arrangement on the list. To see the full list, click on the blue text "See other arrangements of this song", at this link.) An arrangement is based on a song, but is itself considered to be a "new" song. For example, the arrangement for 2-Part Choir + Piano (versus the original Turtles' arrangement for their 6-piece rock band) was composed in F minor—so the "original published key" of this arrangement is F minor. But it is an arrangement/derivative of the Turtles' original song, which was originally published in E minor. Also, only the original Turtles' version (click on the button "Transpose") has (6) transpositions, which are identical to the original song, except shifted up or down by one or a few steps to accomodate voices/instruments. None of the other 18 arrangements have linked transpositions available, because they themselves are only derivative works based on the original song. (No need for a "derivative of a derivative".) Therefore, the current reference is still consistent and reliable, and E minor still appears to be the original published key. Suggestions Probably your best bet would be to look through archives of Billboard, Rolling Stone, or other music magazines/publications. There may also be some good resources on Google Books or Google News. Maybe somewhere in the archives it says that they increased the speed of the recording in order to shorten the song's length (for whatever reason), which would result in a higher pitch and thus an apparently different key in the final recording vs. the printed sheet music. Or maybe they decided to play it in a different key. Or maybe it actually is recorded in E minor, but it doesn't sound that way to some, or people are listening to different versions. Regardless, we need a reliable source that either directly states F# minor, or explains the difference, if there is one (and if it's not just an artifact of the recording process). Musicnotes is a licensed provider of sheet music, and what they publish on their site came from the original publisher/copyright holder of the music. And it's still the only reliable source we have so far. Hope this was useful. Big universe (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Bug U, you are claiming that the first arrangement in the list is the "original Turtles version", apparently because it's first in the list, and because it provides transpositions, am I understanding you? Please have a look at the full list of arrangements here. There is one labeled "Guitar Recorded Versions (with tab)". That one in it's title claims to be the recorded version, and it is in F# minor. There's nothing on the Musicnotes site that states that the first arrangement in the list is the "original", that's a conclusion that you are drawing. I'm getting frustrated and am near the point of trying to escalate this to a higher level. My frustration is that at this point you still think it's reasonable to claim that the Turtles' original recording in E minor. That recording is out there in the world, it's easily accessible, it has been posted to YouTube, you can check it out for yourself without spending any money. If you haven't already done so, please check it out for yourself and verify the key. If you don't have the musical ability that allows you to do this, you must have a friend or acquaintance who could do it for you. I know that constitutes "original research" and can't be used in the article itself, but it can and should inform our discussions here. Reality matters! While I'd like to see the article state that the song is in F# minor, I really, really, really want to see the incorrect E minor information removed. That's my goal at this point. Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC) @Michael.H.Holmes: Is E minor the original published key? You said: Bug U, you are claiming that the first arrangement in the list is the "original Turtles version", apparently because it's first in the list, and because it provides transpositions, am I understanding you? ... There's nothing on the Musicnotes site that states that the first arrangement in the list is the "original", that's a conclusion that you are drawing. "Bug U"? Freudian slip, perhaps? LOL That's actually not what I was claiming. In any case, the source in the article states unambiguously, in the list of transpositions here (click on button "Transpose 7"), that the "original published key" is E minor. Am reasonably sure my explanation above was also pretty clear, but I decided to look for a licensed sheet music provider that offered less confusing/oddly-worded choices. Sheetmusicnow.com is a licensed provider. They offer only 3 versions of the sheet music, and all 3 versions are in E minor. Two versions are non-transposable (SKU: 387984, SKU: 368200), and one is transposable (SKU: 124079). (The transposable version, when purchased, offers the original published version as a printable-as-is PDF, plus an additional download that can be transposed via their website.) So, the original published key is E minor, as verified/confirmed by a second reliable source. "Reality matters"—or does it? You said: That recording is out there in the world, it's easily accessible, it has been posted to YouTube, you can check it out for yourself without spending any money. If you haven't already done so, please check it out for yourself and verify the key. If you don't have the musical ability that allows you to do this, you must have a friend or acquaintance who could do it for you. I know that constitutes "original research" and can't be used in the article itself, but it can and should inform our discussions here. Reality matters! I am a professionally trained musician, with a formal music education. Yes, I am fully capable of doing a full analysis of the piece. However, I have refrained from giving my own opinion, because the fact is that neither my, your, or anyone's opinion matters here; the only thing that matters is what reliable sources say per WP:RS and WP:OR, i.e. two of the three core editing policies. The following may be helpful: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It is an essay, not a formal policy, but it does a good job of explaining why "Reality matters!" isn't enough. Final thoughts Please realize that I have no problem with adding the info that the recording itself (as opposed to the original composition/sheet music) appears to be in F# minor—as long as there is a reliable source to support it. I do hope you find such a source—but a reliable one needs to be found before the info can be added. Also, just wanted to mention: please see this link on how to indent your talk page replies to make your replies easier to read. Sincerely, "Bug universe", aka Big universe (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC) "Bug U" was just a typo, sorry about that! I'm taking this too seriously. It's entirely possible that the sheet music was originally published in E minor. I don't know, but as I mentioned before I don't think it's relevant to this article, which is about a specific recording of the song. I'll keep looking for a good source about the key of the recording, and will try to maintain radio silence in the meantime! Michael.H.Holmes (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC) @Michael.H.Holmes: No worries: I thought it was hilarious! You did seem to be getting very frustrated with the situation, but there's no need for "radio silence". There could be other aspects of this article that you'd like to improve, or you might try editing other articles (music-related or not). Maybe even choose a random article to edit from the Random article generator. As far as "original published version" vs. the key of the recorded version, both can co-exist peacefully in the "Composition" section of the article. I think readers would find it quite interesting if the recorded version is actually different from the original composition. Whatever you decide, good luck in your search, and best wishes! Big universe (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

@24.115.251.72: Please explain why you want to remove those content. INeedSupport ^:3 17:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That 70s show

There is a musical episode from that show where the cast sings the song in one scene. Could be added to the popculture section, i guess --31.18.249.162 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Personnel section

Has anyone been able to find a source for this section? All I could find (based on liner notes) was on Dr.dk, and the information therein contradicts this article: [1] (it claims Kaylan additionally played keyboard). I tried to reference this source, but the edit was rejected and I even got a warning (did I do something wrong here?) Or is this source unreliable, in which case wouldn't it be better to remove the section? Thanks in advance. --88.115.126.166 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Happy Together (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

This will run over two days! --K. Peake 08:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• [1] is not needed in the infobox when that info is already sourced in the body
• Should pop really be included as a genre when two sub-genres of it already are? Also, write these out in prose and remove the refs from here.
• The lead is somewhat out of order; before release, you should place the composers, then the recording info.
• "b/w "Like the Seasons"," → "backed by "Like the Seasons","
• Make the lyrics sentence the one after release, moving commercial reception to following on from this one
• The first and only chart-topper part is not sourced directly in the body
• "included on their third studio album," → "included on the Turtles' third studio album,"
• Lowercase the Magicians per MOS:THEMUSIC
• Wikilink acoustic guitar, however the hand claps part is not sourced
• "a dozen artists" this exact number needs to be sourced
• "and, thinking the song a potential hit, initially rehearsed it" → "and saw the song as a potential hit, initially rehearsing it"
• Mention the year they appeared on those two shows
• The media usage like covers is not sourced
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on United States and place the country after the century
• Pipe BMI To Broadcast Music, Inc.
• [6][7] are not needed in the lead when that info is already sourced in the body
• Those members are not sourced as the ones that fought to copyright the song
• Pipe Sirius XM Radio to Sirius XM

Background

• Retitle to Background and development
• Remove brackets around with Jimmy Woods because you are already talking about co-writing by here
• "but it was rejected" → "but the demo was rejected" and also mention there was around a dozen artists
• Img looks good!
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on California
• "almost led the Turtles to" → "almost led to the Turtles"
• "some time to listen to submitted" → "some time listening to submitted"
• "sent some demos that included" → "sent some demos, including"
• "While interviewed by Grammy Awards," → "While interviewed by the Grammy Awards," and can't you add an interviewer name or something?
• "said that when he heard it the first time he" → "said when he heard "Happy Together" the first time, he"
• "voices were abysmal"." → "voices were abysmal."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
• The unawareness is not sourced
• "and that other session musicians" → "and other session musicians"
• "and praised it as much" → "and he praised it as much"
• Quote box looks good!
• Italicise Stereogum
• "and with Bonner and Gordon's song" → "and, with Bonner and Gordon's song,"

Recording

• Remove wikilink on the Turtles for the img
• Remove overly obvious wikilinks on New York and California
• "wanted us to have it." → "wanted us to have it."" to end the quote properly
• "The group rehearsed" → "The band rehearsed"
• January 1967 is not mentioned by the source
• ""Happy Together"'s session was" → "The song's session was"
• "Jim Tucker, bassist Chip Douglas and drummer John Barbata" → "Jim Tucker, bassist Douglas, and drummer Barbata"
• [22] should solely be at the end of the sentence
• "the other three were for the vocals and" → "the next three were for the vocals, and"
• Pipe overdubs to Overdubbing
• "the basic track (drums, bass and guitars)" → "the basic drums, bass, and guitars track"
• ""maybe another three hours" → ""Maybe another three hours" per the source
• "was basically done"." → "was basically done."" per MOS:QUOTE
• "15 takes according to Fred Bronson's book" → "15 takes, according to Bronson's book"
• "presumed that they had" → "presumed that the Turtles had"
• Quote box looks good!
• "probably the most cited is from Chip Douglas." → "Douglas has been the most cited from."
• "With only nine months in the group," → "With only nine months as a member,"
• "be the middle voices"." → "be the middle voices.""
• "John Barbata credited himself for" → "Barbata credited himself for"
• Remove pipe on overdubbing
• "hear it numerous times. "I just" → "hear it numerous times: "I just"
• "be a No.1 record"." → "be a No.1 record.""
• "in some portions while other segments" → "in some portions, while other segments"
• "referring to the production methods" → "This referred to the production methods" starting as a new sentence, so you avoid a run-on

Composition

• Retitle to Composition and lyrics
• Remove pipe on F♯ major
• Wikilink electric guitar
• [13] should be solely at the end of the sentence
• "the chorus begins (consisting of" → "the chorus begins. It consists of" to avoid a run-on, like earlier
• "vocals are backed by" → "vocals, backed by"
• "Many listeners (like Langerholc[39])" → "Many listeners, including Langerholc,[39]"
• "with Perone stating that the relationship" → "with Perone stating the relationship"
• Add the release year of "Mirage"
• "observed that is the listener's option" → "observed that it is the listener's option"

Release and commercial performance

• Img looks good!
• Why is January 1967 listed as the release date when Uncut points to February?
• "May 14, 1967, [50]and again," → "May 14, 1967,[50] and again,"
• "in March that consisted of" → "in March, consisting of" and specify the year of 1967 or 1968
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on Los Angeles
• "on March 25, overtaking The Beatles'" → "on March 25, 1967, overtaking the Beatles'" per MOS:THEMUSIC
• Some of the stats mentioned in the lead still need to be written out here
• "for three weeks before being knocked out of the #1 position" → "for three weeks, before being knocked out of this position"
• "stayed on the Billboard Hot 100 charts" → "stayed on the US Billboard Hot 100 charts"
• "became a Top 10 hit" → "became a top-10 hit"
• Remove excess space for [47] [54]
• Decapitalise gold and add the full name of RIAA, also mention the year and that this was in the United States

Reception and accolades

• "received primarily good reviews" → "was met with primarily good reviews"
• Add a writer or staff of for Billboard magazine, plus remove the duplicate pipe on the last word
• "praised Joe Wissert's production." → "praised Wissert's production."
• "they write that it is a" → "they write that the song is a"
• Refs should be invoked at the end of any sentences using direct quotes
• "a hit for the group." → "a hit for the band."
• "stating that the group are" → "with the staff stating that the Turtles are"
• "writes that the group" → "writes that the band"
• "starts off tamely which escalates into a" → "starts off tamely, escalating into a"
• "sort of sound."" → "sort of sound"." per MOS:QUOTE
• "All in all, he gave" → "All in all, Jones gave" and specify out of how many stars
• Remove "the" before Denise Sullivan and add the correct ref at the end of the sentence
• Remove or replace The Daily Guru per WP:SELFPUB
• "reviewers and authors labeled it" → "reviewers and authors labeled "Happy Together""
• The Sullivan ref is not invoked at the end of the sentence
• "for Stereogum, praised it for" → "for Stereogum, praised the song for"
• Remove wikilink on the Beatles
• "innovations to "put them" → "innovations for "putting them" per the source
• "in their career." → "in their career"." to end the quote
• "in the United States of" → "in the US of" per MOS:US
• [6] should solely be invoked at the end of the sentence
• Add the release years of the two songs
• "by Simon and Garfunkel." → "by Simon & Garfunkel." with the wikilink
• "it was inducted into" → "the song was inducted into"

Copyright lawsuits

• Pipe Sirius XM Radio to Sirius XM
• "the group sought to establish" → "the band sought to establish"
• "in the hopes of earning royalties from Sirius XM; as they did not write" → "The Turtles hoped to earn royalties from Sirius XM; due to not having written"
• There should not be an additional full-stop after Inc.
• The first para needs the appropriate ref(s) invoked
• "the Court ruled that" → "the court ruled that"
• "and that Flo & Eddie could not" → "and Flo & Eddie could not"
• "which originally featured the lyric" → "which originally featured the line"
• "However, the lyric was changed" → "However, this was changed"
• Wikilink pre-chorus per MOS:LINK2SECT

Usage in the movie Adaptation

• Since the lead mentions more media usage, retitle to Usage in media and add others
• "of Kaylan's career."" → "of Kaylan's career"."
• Why is there only a comma after Howard Kaylan for the quote?

Personnel

• Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel

Charts

Weekly charts

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
• Add a citation for New Zealand
• VG-Lista → VG-lista with the wikilink
• The UK position is not displayed as 12
• Add Media Control in brackets for the West German entry
• The US entries do not need the dots

Year-end charts

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
• Add RPM Top Singles for Canada
• U.S. Billboard Hot 100 → US Billboard Hot 100
• U.S. Cash Box → US Cash Box Top 100

All-time charts

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION
• U.S. Billboard Hot 100 → US Billboard Hot 100

Certifications

• See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Notes

• on April or May 1966, but Wadhams wrote that the band found the demo on → in April or May 1966, but Wadhams wrote that the band found the demo in
• Wikilink as oboes per WP:PIPE

References

• Copyvio score looks too high at 41.2%; cut down quoting from MixOnline to fix this
• Archive all of these by using the tool
• You need to add the via parameter to the ones that are citing from sites like Google Books
• Ref 1 is not completely filled in
• Wikilink Concordia University on ref 2
• Wikilink Farrar, Straus and Giroux on ref 3
• Pipe McFarland to McFarland & Company on ref 4
• Wikilink Hong Kong University Press on ref 5
• Pipe BMI to Broadcast Music, Inc. on ref 6
• GRAMMY.com → Grammy on ref 7, piping to Grammy Awards and citing as publisher instead
• Cite AllMusic as publisher instead on refs 8, 9, 34, 45 and 47, wikilinking on the first instance and fixing the complete italicization of ref 9
• Remove or replace refs 10, 48, 49, 50, 53, 62 and 63 per WP:RSYT on self-published accounts
• Remove or replace ref 11 per WP:SELFPUB
• www.wearehappytogether.com → We Are Happy Together on ref 12
• Should Berklee Press be piped to Berklee College of Music on ref 13?
• www.rebeatmag.com → Rebeat and fix MOS:QWQ issues on ref 14
• Wikilink TwoMorrows Publishing on ref 15
• Wikilink Harmony Books on ref 16
• Pipe Salem Press to Grey House Publishing on ref 17
• Pipe Backbeat Books to Rowman & Littlefield on ref 20
• For refs 21, 27, 31, 35 and 46 UNCUT → Uncut and pipe to Uncut (magazine) on the first instance, plus link to the pages for any citing past the first one and fix duplicate instances and MOS:QWQ issues
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 22
• Wikilink Internet Archive on ref 23
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 24, cite YouTube in the via parameter and cite The Recording Academy as publisher with the wikilink
• www.jerryreuss.com → Jerry Reuss on ref 25, if you can justify keeping this since what makes it reliable exactly?
• Remove the author from ref 26 and www.songfacts.com → Songfacts, citing as publisher with the wikilink
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues and wikilink Stereogum for ref 28
• Ref 30 is a duplicate of ref 29
• Pipe Goldmine Magazine: Record Collector & Music Memorabilia to Goldmine (magazine) on ref 36
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues and cite Musicnotes.com as publisher instead for ref 37
• Remove or replace ref 39 per WP:SELFPUB
• Cite Songbpm.com as publisher instead on ref 40
• Cite Classic FM as publisher instead and pipe to Classic FM (UK) on ref 43
• Pipe ABC-CLIO to ABC-Clio on ref 44
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 51, cite YouTube in the via parameter and cite The Ed Sullivan Show as work with the wikilink
• Ed Sullivan Show → The Ed Sullivan Show on ref 52
• Add work/website for ref 54
• Remove the author and cite bac-lac.gc.ca as publisher instead on refs 56 and 58, piping to Library and Archives Canada on the first instance
• Fix the errors for refs 59, 60 and 61, piping Nielsen Business Media, Inc to Nielsen Holdings
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 64 and cite RIAA as publisher with pipe to Recording Industry Association of America
• Pipe Contemporary Books to McGraw Hill Education on ref 70
• Remove or replace ref 71 per WP:SELFPUB
• Wikilink Andrews McMeel Publishing on ref 73
• Fix MOS:CAPS issues and wikilink Associated Press for ref 75
• Remove or replace ref 76 per WP:USERG
• Remove pipe on Billboard for ref 77
• Cite VG-lista 2021 as publisher instead and pipe to VG-lista on ref 83
• Ref 85's citation is not fully filled in
• I am not sure about the reliability of ref 88; can you justify it?
• WP:OVERLINK of Cash Box on refs 91 and 94; plus fix MOS:CAPS issues with the last one
• WP:OVERLINK of RPM on ref 92
• Musicoutfitters.com → Music Outfitters on ref 93

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; the references look the messiest but this should be fixed in due time! --K. Peake 12:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• ✗ Fail after nearly a month with almost no action from the nominator on this article. --K. Peake 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

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.