Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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


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

Lead

Resolved issues from Novice7 (talk)
Nancy Sinatra version


Chart history

Resolved issues from Andrew (talk)
Other versions
  • Specify year in brackets for audio samples. Ex: "Here We Go Again" (2011)
  • The following solo covers have been performed as album cuts not released as singles: - Reword phrase to make better prose

See also

  • Wiki-link goes to all pages with similar name. Fix this to make it link articles that are related to this song.

Notes

  • Section should be titled "References"
  • References 5, 96 - "Discogs" needs to be wiki-linked
  • Reference 12 - "Nielsen Business Media" needs to be wiki-linked
  • Reference 76 - "Slant Magazine" needs to be italicized

Bibliography

  • Section should be titled "Works cited"


Infobox
Lead
Nancy Sinatra version

Chart history

Track listing

Norah Jones/Ray Charles duet version

Chart history

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
unlinked "Rose Theatre".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Andrewstalk 05:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wrong album. It was correctly linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
All of the issues in this section have been addressed. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • References 2, 14, 58, 59, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106 - Publisher is Rovi Corporation  Done
  • This is automatically formatted by {{Allmusic}}
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Here_We_Go_Again_(Ray_Charles_song)/GA1&oldid=1136793162"