Talk:Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Resolved issues from TonyTheTiger (talk)

Infobox "Please Say You're Fooling" doesn't need to be wiki-linked since no page exists for it done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Put music sample in "Composition" section O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Lead ...from his 1967 album Ray Charles Invites You to Listen (catalog number ABCS-595).[1] - Say what album it was (first, second) instead of year; catalog number not necessary in lead; reference not necessary in lead According to the Ray Charles discography, it is the 28th, but I am not sure why Ray Charles Greatest Hits is in the studio albums section, instead of the compilation album section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Catalog and reference moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Since the discography section is not accurate with this, it is ok to use the year number with this album. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ...appearing on the 2004 Genius Loves Company album.[2] - Make it "appearing on Genius Loves Company (2004)"; reference not necessary in lead done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The original version spent 12 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 15 for three weeks. - Change "12 weeks" to "twelve weeks"; put consecutive in between "three" and "weeks" done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) It spent several weeks in the UK Singles Chart top 200, reaching number 38. - "on the chart" not "in the chart"; "top 200" not necessary as UK Singles Chart provides that information in its article; change "reaching number 38" to "and eventually peaked at number 38" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) It also spent 13 weeks on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles top 50 chart. - Change to "It also spent 13 weeks on Billboard's Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles chart." I also changed 13 to thirteen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) When Genius Loves Company was released, it set numerous sales records. - Not necessary to this article Merged with next sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC) ...its co-writer Red Steagall (2007, with Reba McEntire).[3] and Willie Nelson and Wynton Marsalis featuring Jones (2011). - Reference not needed in lead; make continuous sentence O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Covers appear on compilation albums... - Make it "Covers of the song appear on compilation albums..." O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Although its two most successful versions have been rhythm and blues/soul music recordings... - Add comma at end Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) ...most of its other notable covers have been on country music albums and its only - End sentence at "albums"; start new sentence at "Its" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) "Here We Go Again" is a country music standard... - Genre is not country; fix wiki-link of "standard" to "Traditional pop music

Resolved issues from Novice7 (talk)

Nancy Sinatra version Make it a subsection under an "Other versions" section I think it's notable enough to warrant a separate section. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The cover, which according to programming guides - Add comma at end ...was produced by Billy Strange. - Needs reference Added ref. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The b-side to the single... - Capitalize "B" on "B-side" Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The Reprise Records catalog number was 0821. - Not sure if necessary to article content Commented out. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Chart history For the week ended June 7, the song spent - Specify year Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ...but was no longer in the Hot 100. - Change "in" to "on" Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ...slipped from the chart for the week ended June 21. - Specify year Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ...the week dated June 2, 1969. - Reword phrase Why? Nevermind; it seemed weird at first. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ...before peaking at number 21 for the week of June 16. - Specify year Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It spent two more weeks on that chart. - Change "It" to "The song" to avoid too much repetition Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Andrew (talk)

Other versions Specify year in brackets for audio samples. Ex: "Here We Go Again" (2011) Done. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The following solo covers have been performed as album cuts not released as singles: - Reword phrase to make better prose Done. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) See also Wiki-link goes to all pages with similar name. Fix this to make it link articles that are related to this song. Why? Other songs called "Here We Go Again" are not related to this song. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Notes Section should be titled "References" There are several names this section could be called. WP:FNNR —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) References 5, 96 - "Discogs" needs to be wiki-linked Linked on the first occasion per WP:OVERLINK Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) References 8, 36, 88, 101, 102 - Publisher is Amazon.com, Inc. Self-publishing sources do not need to include the publishing company. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Reference 12 - "Nielsen Business Media" needs to be wiki-linked Linked on first occasion per WP:OVERLINK Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Reference 76 - "Slant Magazine" needs to be italicized Slant Magazine is an online-only magazine, so it is optionally italicised. The key is consistency, and throughout the article is is unitalicised. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) A lot of this review is your personal preference and WP:WGN. Thanks for the review, we appreciate it heaps :-), but in future stick to the criteria (WP:WGN can help with this). —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks for referring this link to me. It has made me understand the GA criteria better. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Bibliography Section should be titled "Works cited" There are several names this section could be called. WP:FNNR —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Noted. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

• Specify full release date if possible  Done
  • How is that date related to the Billboard debut date of May 20, 1967?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Most music articles specify the release date of the song. If the song was released with the album, specify that the song was released with the album on a specific date. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't have a release date. Maybe my music co-authors do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Since a specific release date is not available, the year will be fine. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• In total, three different versions have had success on music charts, but none on country music charts. - Country music chart information not necessary in lead  Done
  • I am going to wait to act on this until after there is consensus on the standard sentence above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Is there any further action required on this item. Since the other Country music information was considered relevant, this does not seen to need to be changed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Nothing else is needed here because this issue has been addressed above. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Sinatra version

Chart history

• ...(previously Young Adult Chart),... - Not needed  Done
  • Not done. Novice7 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur. why not WP:PRESERVE--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • A response from the reviewer is needed here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why didn't we PRESERVE the Reprise catalog information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)  Done
  • Can the reviewer comment on the removed Reprise catalog information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Catalog information is only necessary on the discography page of the artist. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Track listing

• Song info should have numerical layout (see: Born This Way (song)#Track listing and formats as an example)  Done
  • I will leave this to my co-authors who are music guys.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Novice7 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure if all information in paragraph is necessary to section  Done
  • See above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • What content is at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It was the information about the record companies, but I see now how that explains the content of the section. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Norah Jones/Ray Charles duet version

• Opening paragraph should have a "Background" subsection  Done
  • Not sure what you are asking. The opening paragraph begins with a similar style to the two previous versions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chart history

• First paragraph talks about the album it came from. Therefore, it is not necessary to information in this article.  Done
  • The point was to show that this was the most successful song on a successful album. Without the context of the album's success something is lost.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • What does noted mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
        • It means that I agree with your defense on the issue, and that the problem is now solved. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• The duet was released for digital download on January 31, 2005.[87] A Compact Disc single of the song was released on April 19, 2005.[88] - Information should be at beginning of whole section  Done
  • I will reconsider this after the first paragraph issue is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Is this noted with the above item?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • After looking at this again, it seems OK to put this information in this part of the section. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• After the album earned eight Grammy Awards and the song won Record of the Year sales picked up and the album was re-promoted. - Not necessary to article topic  Done
  • Maybe not, but I don't think it should necessarily be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other versions

• "Ode to Billy Joe", "My Woman, My Woman, My Wife", "Lonely People", "Here We Go Again", "Rose Theatre", and "12/8 shuffle" do not need to be wiki-linked  Done

• Why not? —Andrew_stalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

unlinked "Rose Theatre".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:REDNOT, you should not have red links to pages that will likely never be created. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We have modestly notable studio albums from notable musicians. It is hard to guess which ones are really forthcoming. If I were to bet on any being bluelinked by the end of 2012, I might only bet on the Martin album. Not dead set against delinking the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

12/8 shuffle was linked above and no need to relink here. I am not sure why 12/8 was removed as an adjective for shuffle. I have restore it, but left it unlinked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed 12/8 because it is mentioned earlier that the song is written in 12/8 signature. Although I am not too knowledgeable about music theory so it could be possible to change time signatures. —Andrew_stalk 05:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it was written in 12/8, I think we should retain the fact that a later version remained 12/8.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For 12/8 time, you can wiki-link it to Time signature#Most frequent time signatures to redirect readers to information about 12/8 time. For the red links, Ode to Billy Joe is actually Ode to Billie Joe and was incorrectly linked. The rest of the red links, according to WP:REDLINK can be kept to help other Wikipedians potentially create this article in the future. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong album. It was correctly linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have linked the 12/8 shuffle. Do any issues remain?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the issues in this section have been addressed. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• References 2, 14, 58, 59, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106 - Publisher is Rovi Corporation  Done

• This is automatically formatted by {{Allmusic}}

• I looked at the reference, and you can actually edit the publisher. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is the issue one this item?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• The issue was citing the right publisher for the source. I fixed all of the publishers to include Rovi Corporation.

OVERALL REVIEW

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. Here are the main points that need to be addressed:

• Prose quality: There are several mistakes with grammar and punctuation that are affecting the prose of the article.
• MoS compliance for layout: The layout of this article needs to be fixed to make the article flow better.
• Citation of reliable sources where necessary: There are only a few spots in this article where specific facts do not have citations.

Besides these main issues, there are many other minor mistakes which I pointed out above. I will give you the general seven days to address the items in this article and/or debate the items you believe do not affect GA status. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since all of the issues have been addressed, I feel confident putting this article in good article status. Congratulations and keep up the good work. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (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.