Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ucucha 20:56, 28 January 2012 [1].

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)[edit]

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC), Novice7, Adabow[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, I think it compares favorably to its peers that are current FAs of songs within 10 years of the original version of this ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Layla").TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I can't believe how it failed the nomination. The only issue was actually the non-free file usage, but you should know that Sinatra's and Charles' versions are completely different. I understand that it violated when you had three covers (the Norah Jones and Ray Charles duet version cover), and I agree it was redundant, as it was more a remake than a cover version. But now I believe it meets the criteria, especially as you added content to the last section. Very well done.♫GoP♫TCN 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Actually, the prior nom started with 3 cover arts and 5 musical samples. Yes, we have slimmed this down. Thanks for your support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "and the vocals span from the low note of G3 to the high note of C5" Standards for low and high notes vary, so I would suggest these removed. --Efe (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a musician, so I won't debate that issue. I will await my co-authors and see how they feel about the suggestion. If no action in 24 hours or so, I will remove.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "spotchecks not done" mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means I haven't actually looked at the sources to ensure that the article is an accurate representation (WP:V) without too-close wording (WP:Close paraphrasing/WP:COPYVIO). This isn't to imply that you've done anything wrong, but is simply a flag for delegates and later reviewers to indicate the scope of my review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on criteria 1a. The article just doesn't flow at the moment and I find myself confused on some issues.

  • In the lead:
    • Did Don Lanier and Red Steagall record the song first or did they write it for Charles? Therefore is the Charles version a cover or not? - needs clarification.
      • They wrote it and there was actually another cover before Charles that was insignificant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there were versions before Charles' version then the release date of the first version should be noted and who recorded it. This will put Charles' version in context. If Charles' version isn't the original then why is it labelled as the original? Also there isn't a reference at present proving Don Lanier and Red Steagall wrote the song. This information isn't in the main body either.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe it was previously covered on the Billy Ray Vaugh album mentioned at the start of the "Other versions" section, but never released as a single. I believe Charles had the original single release. What is wrong with ref 10 as proof of authorship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoops, sorry. I missed that. I think the original needs to be written about first in the main body and then go onto Charles' version. This makes more sense chronoligically. Also Don Lanier and Red Steagall need to be linked, because it's their first appearance in the main body.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The original is not a WP:N song. I don't think there exist any WP:RS with substantive critical commentary or encyclopedic discourse on the song. No one would look on WP for it. There are two versions that people would search WP for. I am not going to find books about that version or even that album. It is an afterthought/footnote belonging in a relegated position, IMO. It seems to me that Steagall and Lanier are linked. What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a lot of chopping and changing between which version of the song is being talked about here. I think it would make sense if the first paragraph was about the Ray Charles version. Then go onto the two other notable versions in a second paragraph, with more info about the Nancy Sinatra version, as a whole section is dedicated to her in the main body. The third paragraph is clear as it is now, with the other versions of the song.
      • Why shouldn't the most critically successful version be mentioned in the first paragraph. I almost think Grammy Award for Record of the Year should be in the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with the current version of the lead is that each version of the song is talked about in more than one paragraph, which means "Ray Charles' version of the song", "Ray Charles and Norah Jones' version of the song" and "Nancy Sinatra's version of the song" are repeated to show which one is being referred to. This confused me when I first read it and doesn't read well either. That's why I'd have a section on each version so the reader knows which version is which.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said swap in the revised version I presented herein if you think it is better. If I trust you to do a copyedit, I trust you to make that call.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I were to rework the first two paragraphs as suggested, it would be something likt this:
"Here We Go Again" is a country music standard written by Don Lanier and Red Steagall that first became notable as a rhythm and blues single by Ray Charles from his 1967 album Ray Charles Invites You to Listen. This version was produced by Joe Adams for ABC Records/Tangerine Records. Currently, this version remains the biggest commercial success. It spent twelve consecutive weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, peaking at number 15.
Its most notable cover version is the rhythm and blues duet by Charles and Norah Jones, appearing on the 2004 Genius Loves Company album. This duet was the biggest critical success. When Genius Loves Company was released, the duet cover on that album earned the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration at the 47th Grammy Awards posthumously for Charles who died in 2004. The Nancy Sinatra version charted for five weeks in 1969. The song has been covered in a wide variety of musical genres. In total, three different versions have had success on music charts, however none on country music charts.

Feel free to substitute this for the current first two paragraphs if you prefer it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why is the word "music" used after every genre? Just "jazz" or "country" would read much better.
      • I am not sure what is common in WP:SONG articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the What'd I Say article there is only one instance where a music genre is linked with "music" left after it, which is warranted in the sentence: "After his run of R&B hits, this song finally broke Charles into mainstream pop music and itself sparked a new sub-genre of R&B titled soul". Music is not included in the soul link because it doesn't fit in with the sentence. I think this rule should be applied to "Here We Go Again".  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed a couple musics in the LEAD. It seems to me that the word country and music go together. Feel free to change a few more.
    • I'll assess the flow of the prose in the lead again when these main issues have been reworked.
  • Original version section
    • "In November 1959, Charles signed with ABC Records after twelve years as a professional musician and following the expiration of his Atlantic Records contract." => "In November 1959, after twelve years as a professional musician, Charles signed with ABC Records following the expiration of his Atlantic Records contract." Reads better.

Sorry I'm finding issues with every sentence at this point. Is it ok if I go through the article, giving it a thorough copy edit?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate a copyedit. Feel free and then leave a note with any remaining concerns. Should I address any of the concerns above or will they be part of a copyedit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address the issues in the lead first and then I'll give the article a copyedit?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the article. Feel free to revert or change if you disagree. There are still some issues that I need to bring up later and I might give it another look through to see if I can find anything I've missed.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you swapped in the LEAD we have been discussing. I do not see any other copyeditting. Did you forget to save other issues that you might have resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following your copyedit and have few qualms. The only thing that I really am ccuirous about is why you are linking things in the main body after they have already been linked in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OVERLINK states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". Maybe Ray Charles should be delinked afer the lead, as he is one of the main subjects of the article. What do you think? What are your other qualms? And of course if I've messed something up in the ce please revert back; my edits are by no means the only way to rectify the problems in the prose.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. Generally, people think I have too many links in my articles, so I would lean toward fewer repeats of links in the main body including Charles, Lanier, Steagall, and Invites You to Listen. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. now that you have gotten more familiar with the content and have been able to modify it, do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBH when I first read the article I'd forgotten who Lanier and Steagall were when I saw them after the lead, as well as the Invites You to Listen album, so I'd prefer for the reader's sake they were left in. However I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, so I won't mind if you remove the links. I only got through half the article in my last ce, so I'll see if anything needs rejigging in the other half. Then I'll continue my review here with any points that I need to discuss.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 12:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think for a WP:FA links should be repeated from the WP:LEAD to the 1st section. I have delinked all 7 that I saw. Please don't take offense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my ce I've got a few points:
    • Sid Feller is mentioned twice in the article as to having conducted and recorded Charles' original version of the song. Is there a reason for this? Therefore the credits section of the Ray Charles version seems redundant, with the duplicated Sid Feller info in it as well.
    • What do the catalog numbers bring to the reader's understanding of the article. Non of the FAC song articles you've listed at the top of this page have them in.
      • I do not understand the encyclopedic value of the catalog numbers. I will leave the decision on that to my co-authors. It does not strike me that removing them would improve the article for the reader, but I am not qualified to say.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=472664363&oldid=472593400 message on my talk page that you would support if I resolved the catalog issue. I see the following content in the article:
          ...listed as the sixth of ten tracks on Ray Charles Invites You to Listen (catalog number ABCS-595).
          This is one of two songs on the album ("Yesterday" being the other) that in addition to being listed as ABC-Par ABC595 is credited as Dunhill DZS036 [CD].[39] The individual song had a label number ABC/TRC 10938.
          • It seems to me that if two songs on an album are cataloged with the same number we should point it out to the reader. Thus, I left the second item. Not sure what you are getting at with this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I correct that you want both of these examples of content entirely removed. I am not a musician, but it seems to me like one of them should remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amount of track timings in the article seems a bit unnecessary. Maybe instead of listing how long the track took on each recording released, state the original time and that it varies on subsequent releases, or include the average time. It seems enough for me just to include the time of the tracks in the infoboxes with a reference to support it, like in the article "Layla".
      • The number of track timings is influence by their availability and the trend on WP for newer songs to include them. The 2nd important version of this song is in the date range of songs for which WP readers expect extensive track timing information. There is no reason to toss that content, since we have it, IMO. If you insist, I will reconsider, but I just don't see a reason not to WP:PRESERVE that type of information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not going to contest this issue, as you give an adequate reason for keeping them. I suggest that you consider rewriting these sections if other reviewers have an issue with them though.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if you're delinking repeated links. The aptly named Jim Horn is also linked twice. Sid Feller is linked twice as well.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might find some more, but I've got other things to do at the moment.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Here_We_Go_Again_(Ray_Charles_song)/archive2&oldid=1138462611"