Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011.

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR),, 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very interesting song article. I also have very helpful co-authors who remain intersted in the subject. After a productive GA run, I thought I would give it a shot here. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - an interesting article, but needs work to reach FA standards. Here are some specific concerns:


 * See also link should instead be a hatnote
 * I am often corrected for having hatnotes to the main link from a dabbed link. Are you sure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the see also link is needed at all. Removed. —  Andrew s talk  04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the sound sample pages are missing song length. Also, the article says "According to Allmusic, the original track has a 3:09 length, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it had a length of 3:11", but the sample page gives a source of Nancy and a length of 3:11
 * Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File:NancySinatra_HereWeGoAgain.ogg is too long, given the corrected song length. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the sample. Decreased the length by one second. Novice7 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The non-lead infoboxes aren't "main infoboxes"; FURs for non-lead cover art should be amended
 * Something is wrong with the template and the override fields are only adding text to the default. I put in a request for technical assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox parameter usage has been clarified and I have now corrected the template for these files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Somewhat echoing the point raised by Sven below, but there's an awful lot of non-free media here, both sounds and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider the amount of text related to each FURed file. IMO, the charted versions should be kept. I also think there is meaningful text for the other versions, but like I said before, these are somewhat negotiable.  They certainly help the reader better understand the variety of renditions that have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check formatting of quotes within quotes
 * Are you talking about "I got a call from Ray asking if I'd be interested in singing on this duets record"? That does not really seem to me to be a quote within a quote and I don't see anything else that you could be talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some prose/grammar problems for example "For the week ended June 7"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That specific example was fixed, but this is a general point. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "For the week ending June 14, 1969, the song spent its fifth week" - repetitive and redundant phrasing, check for others
 * I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "week...week" - repetitive and somewhat redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Specific example fixed. There are other areas where the prose could be tightened. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "countrified ache" - is this a direct quote from the source? If not, should be reworded; if so, should be notated as such. Look for other examples of unquoted phrases with unencyclopedic tone
 * Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "when Charles' was understated" - Charles' what?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some WP:MOS issues, including capitalization and overlinking
 * I have addressed some capitalization and overlinking problems. Do you have any further advice about possible lingering concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we need to link all instruments every time in credits lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed many redundant instrument links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should "PopMatters" be italicized or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I deitalicized, like its page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Make sure all citations are complete - websites must have publishers, books should have ISBNs, etc
 * I found 3 offending citations. I have fixed one. One of my co-authors found all the ISSNs for the Billboard stuff. I will note that refs 30 and 44 need may need them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think fixed the remaining ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still issues here. For example, FN 4 is missing a retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That ref got added late and it has been dominated by better refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comments – this article has been largely improved since I first saw it at GAN. It would be nice if this article about a great song gets featured. Good job to bring it to GA status, by the way! I can not support until this issue with the non-free files is resolved.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * link "beats per minute"
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * link Hammond organ instead Hammond and organ
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Overlinking, for example "Allmusic"
 * I was going to delink a second use of its Grammy links, but since they occur so late in the article and are so important an issue in the article I reverted myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a few other redundant links and removed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales, that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album, make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. " reads better
 * I am confused at the suggestion. "that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album" is neither an appositive of sales nor a parenthetical. I am not so good with grammar, but do not understand why it should be set off with commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will strike this, after re-reading it sounds ok. You are right.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Note that the song won Record of the Year, but not Song of the Year." "Note" fails WP:YOU; instead write in passive voice. What about "It should be noted that..." or simply " Note that ...
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Technicians" under "Credits": sometimes you write the first letter in capitals, then in lowercase.
 * Fixed for consistency. Only brands start with caps now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 33: ""The Billboard Book of Top 40 R&B And Hip-Hopp Hits"
 * double p fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 7: "]Tribune Company"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 91: delink Billboard
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the reliability of Songfacts.
 * I found a replacement reference, but I will need help polishing it up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Will re-review later.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "and it was listed as the sixth of ten tracks on the Invites You to Listen album (catalog number ABCS-595).[4][5][6]" would be better to remove "it", as unnecessary
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "When Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) was reissued in 1988, it was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on the album.[2][3] " remove the last album, and replace it with "it".
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ""Another excellent example of how Ray Charles was able to fuse blues and country, "Here We Go Again" is a soulful ballad in the Southern blues tradition. Lyrically, it has a resignation and pain that makes the blues, simply, what it is. The recording has a simple and sterling gospel arrangement and, in retrospect, is one of Charles' finer attempts in the studio from the 1960s."[13]" 'Here We Go Again', and not "Here We Go Again", as quote in quote, per MOS:PUNCT
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The original version debuted in the Billboard Hot 100 in the May 20, 1967 issue at number 79.[14] " on the
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The duet was released for digital download on January 31, 2005.[87]" what does that mean? The duet version?
 * The 2004 cover was the first prominent duet vocal arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is in the Norah Jones/Ray Charles section, so it is not necessary to include the phrase. Change "The duet" to "it". "it was released digitally...".-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me <sub style="color:#DCDCDC;">I am dynamite 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed it in that instance. "The duet" appears four other times in that section, btw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Steagall's version with McEntire (who he is credited with discovering at a 1974 county fair)[104][105] is 3:10.[106]" do you mean "who is credited to discover McEntire at a 1974 county fair"?
 * Changed to who Steagall discovered at a 1974 county fair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the last section, last paragraph, link Alto flute, instead of just flute
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-reviewed.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ <sub style="color:#DCDCDC;">Hey <sup style="color:#DCDCDC;">it's me <sub style="color:#DCDCDC;">I am dynamite 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that this has way too many non-free audio samples, however I am recusing from formally doing the media review (and giving the Oppose vote that would come from the NFCC issues) because of prior interactions with the nominator.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is value in having a wide variety of samples. Certainly the three charted versions serve a purpose. I also think having a pure country music version and a jazzy version are beneficial.  Obviously, if limited we would cut the other versions that did not chart, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Generally not comprehensive. The info on the original version gives little to the reader.
 * We are talking about a song that was not a Top 10 single. There is not much information out there on it.  It is not written about in Ray Charles books. I have basically exhausted the Chicago Public Library for information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria are not compromised just because there's not much information published. If there's not enough sources, then by all means this must not be passed as FA. I cannot recall where it is written here in Wikipedia, but it states that absolutely not all articles are FA-worthy (perhaps due to little information) and this one might be one of them. Unless more information are published and can be used here in Wikipedia. --Efe (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what kind of content you feel is missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that when compared to other FA songs, this will not have performance details for the most notable version since its success was posthumous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I find enough of added content for you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose. Choppy prose. One paragraph for each sub-section. Paragraphs are like segments of sentences of different topics.
 * Prose.
 * Vague and might be redundant: the song was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on it a bonus track therefore not part of the original and standard tracklist
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The song was also included on Ray Charles Anthology (1988) I just thought the use of parenthesis is sloppy and breaks the "reading"
 * That seems to be the standard preferred format for an album to put its year in parenthesis afterward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please lead me to that "preferred format". Though not a big deal, but it really is sloppy or unreadable-breaks the reading. IMO, those years can be rewritten as part of the sentence instead of having them enclosed in the parenthesis. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am mixing up films and albums. I will convert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want the same change in the opening paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made these changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Though there are still issues in the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestions welcome. Do you think removing those remaining parentheticals would help the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestions like there are a lot of trivia (chart info), the enumeration of names (cover versions), etc.. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is much performance history since it was a posthumous success and he was not in good health in his latter days. I aware of an official video. Thus, much of the other type of text you would see in an FA is not going to be in this one leaving it with a lot of chart performance.  In terms of amount of chart performance, I opened up three songs and found Hey Baby (No Doubt song) 1653 characters, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) 2972 chars, and Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) 2006 chars. This article has 1967 version 1172 chars, 1969 version 1301 chars and 2004 version 2548 chars.  Total chars is high, but per charted version the amount of text is pretty normal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course its not practical to compare this with contemporary singles. What I meant by trivia is this, for instance: By August 12, it was no longer among the Hot 100,[21] although it remained number 8 on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles. What is the significance of that?
 * And also this one which fails to meet FAC #4. The entire paragraph could be best placed in the album's article: The song was the best-selling track on a record-setting album on many levels. For the week ending September 18, 2004, Genius Loves Company sold 202,000 copies, ranking second on the Billboard 200. This was Charles' highest charting album in over 40 years and represented an opening week record for a duets album (since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking such statistics in 1991). Frank Sinatra's 1993 Duets sold 339,000 during the Christmas week, eight weeks after its 173,500-unit opening. The initial shipment of 733,000 units was an all-time record for the 31-year history of Concord Records and the sales represented a Soundscan record for the company.[83] In addition, the album placed at number five on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums for Charles' highest placement since A Portrait of Ray peaked at fifth in 1968.[84] These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. The previous record for most tracks from the same album was 9 by Neil Young & Crazy Horse with their 2003 Greendale album.
 * This is an attempt to show that the song was the most successful song on a successful album. Not sure how much of this to move to the album article. However, the GA reviewer mentioned the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Record_charts for guidance. The articled is littered with such. --Efe (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never heard of that policy. Didn't realize how different our content is from other chart performances.  Will clean up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is also influenced by the genres of country music[11] and gospel music. The use of "also" is not useful at all because the preceding sentence does not talk about genres and influences; unless you will transfer that after the first sentence of the paragraph.
 * Allmusic described the original as "Another excellent.. Please add the name of the reviewer, and long quotations must be introduced by a colon instead of letting it stand like a sentence in a sentence.


 * Trivia-like info. Those chart "trajectories" are really unnecessary. Some of it are contained in the lead, which should summarize the article and therefore those must be removed / rephrased.
 * Media. That audio sample(s) is not compliant with WP:NFCC. It adds no significance to the readers, and the description is not descriptive at all.--Efe (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me where the line is, so I am not sure what needs to be removed. I await a content review. IMO, since this is a country music song, we should have a country music sample and all other music samples have significant amounts of content in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like images, audio samples should not be used simply for "sampling" purposes for each cover of a song, otherwise that is decorative. Even just a single sample from a notable song is not an immediate allowance for its use.  That said, for this article, I see only two of the samples having any type of commentary on the quality of the song's performance: the original song, and the duet one. The other three are excessive, not discussed at all in the article, and ergo, fail NFCC#3a and NFCC#8.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the version where the text and comments have been added since, I would have to argue that there is still too much use of sound files here. Again, the original song and the Norah Jones duet piece - those seem fine, so I'm not going to comment on them. But the other samples seem poorly justified, the next strongest would be the one by Nelson and Jones but even then, if the point of the sound file is to show Nelson's lackluster vocals against the overall song, that can be described in text without a problem.  Or to put it another way: I believe the other three sound files could be removed, and the reader's understanding of the article would not be affected the slightest, generally a sign that the files are extraneous even if there is commentary that leads towards them. --M ASEM  (t) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the three files that you question, I can concede that the Nelson/Jones version is not important to the overall history of the song. It would be unnatural for us to have an article just on that version if the other versions did not exist because it never charted and has been barely mentioned in reliable sources. I continue to be at a total loss in understanding WP:NFCC.  I spent some time looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song. Only "Hey Jude" makes sense to me.  I remain unable to understand why "The Long and Winding Road" has no audio samples while "What'd I Say" has two from the same song. "Like a Rolling Stone" includes a sample of a Jimi Hendrix with little explanation while "Layla" does not include the Grammy Awarded Eric Clapton Cover. As a result, I am not quite sure how to present my case/clarification request. But here goes. The Sinatra version charted at Billboard for five weeks. If we were to create a separate article for it (in the absence of other versions) with an audio sample that would be considered entirely natural for the encyclopedia.  Any song that charts for five weeks by a notable artist could have a song with an audio sample.  In this case, we have a song that charted in one musical style and was described as another, which happens to be the original.  Thus, we have a song for which the interpretation of the musical style was at controversy.  This should leave the reader to wonder why is it Easy Listening according to some and Country according to others. Hmm. Let me listen and see. Not to mention the fact that it charted on Billboard for five weeks. O.K. so when I listen to it, it remains unclear to me exactly why it isn't true country.  What could help the reader understand? Obviously a straigtforward hard core country version.  Thus, the Strait version.  The Strait version not only helps the reader understand the controversy surrounding a charted version, but it also presents the song in the style it was written.  At WP:FS the Strait version might be considered the most important because versions that present the song as written are regarded as the most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think starting from the assumption that any notable song is entitled to a non-free sample is the mistake here. That simply isn't a clearly allowable use as, say, cover art for published works. Many notable singles can be discussed in broad terms without the reader having to hear a sample to understand the encyclopedic nature of the song.  We do allow samples where the audio style has been explicitly discussed in a manner that the audio would significantly improve the reader's understanding.  Hence why the original song and the duet are reasonable samples to include here, since there is commentary that works alongside the audio.
 * One thing on past FA's: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any FA passed before, say, 2008, is likely not a good example to draw from as NFC checking was not as rigorous as it is today. Of the examples, "What'd I Say"'s two sample rationale is discussed in the FAC, in that both parts were critically commented on, but take from effectively two different songs (part I and part II), thus allowing for both; for "Like a Rolling Stone", there actually is dicussion in depth of the Hendrix version within the article body (it doesn't have to be in the caption).  The others that lack samples are completely fine - again, it is not a requirement that a notable song need an audio sample. --M ASEM  (t) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks again for giving me feedback. I don't understand how NFCC is applied, so I am just going to ask directly about my specific samples at issue. Ignoring the argument that it charted making it notable and just focusing on the fact that it charted in one musical style, but is classified by some in another why doesn't that make a presentation of the Sinatra audio file encyclopedic? This song is peculiar as a Country song that hasn't charted as a country song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Strait version, why doesn't it matter how the song was written. It seems encyclopedic to me to say, this song has charted on all kinds of other charts, but not the Country song despite the fact that it is truly a country song and then show the reader what the song really was written to sound like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See responses to J Milburn and Hammersoft below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The audio samples are poorly captioned therefore we cannot identify its significance. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have recaptioned them now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That free image in the infobox seems impractical. That was previously embedded in the prose. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will move it back to the prose and leave the infobox empty.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for more substantive thought on whether as captioned the various files can remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The audio files? --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony. The page is lengthy that it's becoming hard to navigate. Please pardon me for introducing another "sub section" of my review. Going back to the above, let's summarize the details:
 * Efe's Oppose
 * Criterion 1a Prose
 * Still there are areas there prose is not quite good. For instance, Charles' 1967 tour for the album began with a benefit on the USS Constellation. I just can't understand what do you mean by "began with a benefit".
 * Linked instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS issues. "sing-a-long pop style." as opposed to "sing-a-long pop style". MOS
 * Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Criterion 2a Lead
 * There's just lots of information in the lead. Perhaps you could trim or better summarize the chart performance details, as well as the cover versions.
 * I just trimmed the chart stuff. Working on covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Covers trimmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Criterion 3 Media
 * Still an outstanding issue apropos of the issues raised by other reviewers. Despite of that, some were already taken from the article. Only two (audio samples) are left.
 * Waiting for a review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although its free, the provision of two images of Nora are not, well, don't know how to explain. Perhaps one could do?
 * That version was contemporary in both 2004/05 and 2010. She had different looks in those time periods. Although the 2010 picture is easier to see, the 2005 picture is from the slightly more important time period. It would be hard to go with one since the 2010 picture is so much better. Since both are free, I have included both. I don't understand what the issue is since both are free. Which would you like me to remove, if I remove one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an issue actually. But just because its a free image doesn't mean its fine to choke the article with images. Unless there's a significant reason to add more than what is really needed to perhaps identify the artist in question. --Efe (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Criterion 4 Length
 * This song was made during a phase in Charles' career when he was performing a lot of country music. I think this sentence summarizes that section. So perhaps you could do another round of re-organization.
 * How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The same section. There are unnecessary details like "However, Tangerine did not appear on the label of his works until 1968." Although you did a good job in providing readers insight to the time when Charles was doing a lot of country music, still those details should be somewhere else but here.
 * This is an attempt to explain the main image that does not include the name Tangerine or its logo. I am not sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Performance history. How does the song relates to that section?
 * For 21st century song FAs it is very common to have a performance history section outlining specific important dates that a song was played and concert performance. The section might say something like the song was played on Saturday Night Live, Late Night with David Letterman and Good Morning America on such and such dates. It's debut was on the night of the American Music Awards on X date. The song was also part of the Big Name Tour playlist which began on date x and ended on date y.  The song was used in the following television episodes and on the soundtrack to Movie X.  Of the original versions FA contemporaries (songs within 10 years in either direction: "Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Layla"), only Like_a_Rolling_Stone exists.  I think it is pretty safe to say that the best charting song from the album was part of the album tour playlist although we have no specific evidence. That is the best I can do with this. I know of one date when he appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, but I don't expect any responses to my talk page query about what songs were performed on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the following sentence "The album tour playlist is not readily available, but "Here We Go Again" was the best-charting song on the album (and likely on the playlist)." I am not sure if the part in parenthesis can be included as a logical deduction from/synthesis of the sources or should be considered WP:OR. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. if anyone knows how to find American Bandstand playlists and performance lists that would be helpful although according to List of acts who appeared on American Bandstand Charles never appeared on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Composition. According to the sheet music published by Dirk Music, "Here We Go Again" is a rhythm and blues and soul song Yes it first became notable as an R&B/soul song, but the article introduces it to the readers as a country song.
 * I am a little bit confused by this edit by a recently retired editor. The freely-accessible part of the ref doesn't mention R&B.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To add soon as I can get back to this. Thanks Tony for the patience. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There's a real problem with NFC here. Concerning the covers, I'm not seeing why any but the original should be there. Yes, it is generally held that a single identifying cover image is acceptable in an article about a single; that does not automatically extend. None of the other two covers which you use are significant, and we are perfectly able to understand the article without them. Maybe if the covers themselves were in some way significant, but I'm seeing no reason to believe that they are. As for the samples... I'm very dubious. Some samples may be useful, but this seems excessive. Further, it's difficult to assess the use of the samples because of the utterly useless copy-paste rationales. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly.  I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose The extreme overuse of non-free content is completely unnecessary to the purposes of this encyclopedic content. This mass overuse of non-free content places this article in the top .008% of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usages. Extreme usage requires extreme justification. Yet here, on every...every...sound sample the rationale for usage is a cloned copy of what we find at Music sample info. I.e., no actual thought went into the idea of how these non-free sounds samples are used in the article and how that works within our WP:NFCC policy. They've been included because they can be included. That's it. I also concur with J Milburn's assessment of the covers. The 2nd and 3rd are totally superfluous. Strip all non-free content except the first image in the top infobox, and then very, very judiciously consider adding non-free content and paying very special attention to a real justification for the usage of each item. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly.  I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The album covers are covers. I'm not interested in the pedantics. As to the rationales, it isn't a question of fixing them. It's a question of stripping the article of the sound samples, and figuring out what passages in the article really need the reader to hear the sound sample to gain understanding. Since these sound samples were added so loosely, it's unlikely any of them are closely tied to the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not being pedantic. I was truly confused on what was meant by the only cover that should remain was the first. cover (music) has a meaning that is different from what you were using. I have removed two cover arts and two sample files. I have changed the FUR on the Sinatra version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I was not referring to you as pedantic, but referring to the difference between covers, as in album covers, and covers, as in later performances of a musical work, as pedantics. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have actually reconsidered the two sample files that I removed and readded them with better descriptions that clarify the relevance of their inclusion. I have also modified the FURs. Do you still absolutely oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. There's still not a comprehensive understanding of the role of NFCC that needs to be present for this article to be understandable by the reader. For example, You modified the rationale, which echoes unreferenced text in caption of the image, with the only connection to the prose of the article being that it mentions (without citation) the instrumentation used in the Strait version. So what? I don't need to hear the sample to understand that. You gotta go from basics; don't look at trying to figure out how to retain non-free content. That's backwards. Go from the other direction; start with nothing and work forward, finding stretches of referenced text in the article that isn't understandable without non-free content. This doesn't come close to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you saying is unreferenced? The text provides a reference for the instrumentation, the fact that it is a country song and the fact that it has not charted on the country charts. Do you want citations in both the article description and file description page in general? In this case, the article starts with a sentence that says "'Here We Go Again' is a country music standard . . . that first became notable as a rhythm and blues/soul music single". Isn't it encyclopedic to demonstrate to the reader what it sounds like as a country music song.  Is your point that it does not help the reader to understand how the song was written?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is excellent. Right here you've highlighted the problem with using the non-free content in this way. Just because a song is mentioned doesn't mean we should include a non-free sound clip of it. There is no entitlement to using non-free sound clips. You can't use them just because the song is mentioned. See the last couple of sentences of WP:NFCC #1. Then go back, strip out all the sound clips, and start over. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I thank you for your patience and your promptness in reply. I always end up getting lost in NFCC issues, which is where I need a co-author.  For a long time this article had no country music sample.  I really wondered what the song sounded like in the country style. I think your point is that although the article has several facts about country music (This is a country music standard, this song has never charted on a country music chart, this song has instumentation consistent with country music style, etc.), but the article has no stylistic facts about a country music version requiring the reader to listen to the song to understand said fact.  I am going to check a few reviews before conceding this point. However, confirm that this is the point please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of. The global issue is whether a particular sample from a particular song is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Alternatively, if something significant about the style is referenced by secondary sources is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Only then should a given sample really be considered for inclusion. From there, it's whether the reader can understand the article just fine without the sample. If no, then there's a better reason for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to dig a bit, since the song is not really reviewed. Based on reviews of the album, I have cobled together a summary that this is the most straightforward and hard-core form of the song in the style it was written.  I think that makes it something that the reader benefits from hearing a sample of. How do you feel now with the latest references and reformatted FUR and CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And again this is backwards. You don't include non-free content and then go "had to dig a bit" to find references that mention it. That's completely backwards. You might as well start with non-free content for every cover that's ever been done with this song, and then figure out a way to keep them. Again, strip the content, and start from zero, then work forward. I still strongly oppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strip the content? not really sure how that would help. Basically, we have samples of both a commercial success and critical success version and two samples that are included as it relates to the style of the song as it has been promoted versus the style it was written in. I have removed what you might regard as a shoehorned version by Nelson that I had to dig a bit for.  Could you consider my comment dated 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) above and help me understand the relevant issue here. Whether I remove the sample and put it back in or not, I still have the same issue with the reader not understanding the stylistic controversy and the issue of what other parts of the project (FS) would consider the most encyclopedic version meeting with objection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we're at an impasse. I've made every attempt to explain the seriousness of the issue. I'm lacking in the necessary skills to convey this issue to you. Regardless of my shortcomings, I remain opposed. This article clearly does not pass. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to Sandy: I have given up on including several fair use samples today and await an NFCC review. It is my belief that the current objections are largely based on NFCC concerns. Not sure that any will convert to supports, but I expect some opposes to be withdrawn and possibly to have an NFCC endorsement in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the best place to ask for an image review if WT:NFCC fails?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get an FU file review so that I don't have to set up a whole separate PR just to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I have non-media concerns from a couple of reviewers, I am wondering if there is a way to get the NFCC review before this closes or during a PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.