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

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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


 * Infobox
 * Specify full release date if possible ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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)

Chart history
 * Nancy Sinatra version
 * ...(previously Young Adult Chart),... - Not needed ✅
 * 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) ✅
 * 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) as an example) ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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. ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Why not? —  Andrew s talk  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 s talk  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 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 ✅
 * 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.

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:
 * OVERALL REVIEW
 * 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)