Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by GrahamColm 11:47, 16 June 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) , Novice7, Adabow 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I continue to believe that this article 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"). I have included my co-nominators from the prior nominations. I have been in contact with the two reviewers with outstanding issues on the prior nomination: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) (I have had extensive communications on her talk page where I have sort of been directed on how to satisfy her concerns) and Kitchen roll (talk · contribs) who has been unresponsive to my attempts to determine if removing one of the two catalog number references was sufficient. I feel these were the only two outstanding issues on the prior nomination.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I did in the previous nomination.--GoPTCN 08:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with comments
  • I would eliminate the small lists and incorporate the names into the text somewhere as I don't think they offer much in their current format.
  • I believe the track listings are standard format for songs, so I guess the remaining lists are the musician credit lists. I will have to look around and see what is standard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of the five songs ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road" and "Layla") listed at the beginning of this nomination have personnel lists. Therefore, I am going to leave them like they are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the lists are in prose in the Other versions section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats fine. Like I say, there is no insistence and I'm sure this is the norm. It's merely a personal preference to eliminate lists from prose articles. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there is some slight squeezing of text as a result of the image and infobox and the images opposite halfway down. Location of text would have a lot to do with this I know. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, yes the Norah Jones image. Could the sound recording be moved down to the left side of the last para of that section? I know that it is difficult to accommodate the info box, Jones image and the sound recording in such a small section, so some squeezing is going to be inevitable. The moving down of the sound recording could lessen this somewhat. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also commended Sinatra's vocal performance, writing it was 'fine'." This to me doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "They also commended Sinatra's singing, calling it a "fine" performance. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original version
  • ABC Records may need a wiki link as per it's first mention in the body. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, in the Orignal version section, ABC Records is mentioned. It maybe good to link this to prevent the reader having to stop and go back to the lede to enquire about this prominent record company as per WP:REPEATLINK. No worries if you disagree. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Your choice. Still a good article though.

Comments by Pyrrhus16 - Didn't spot any big issues. Just a few minor things.

  • "Charles' tour began with a benefit concert on the USS Constellation" - "Constellation" should be in italics.
  • The song is written in the key of B♭ major,[19] It's primarily a country song,[20] but it contains gospel influences.[21]" - Period after "major" and perhaps remove the "it" before "contains".
    • Fixed the period, but left the it because I am not sure how to change the punctuation if I remove it and feel it is O.K. with it unless you can elaborate on further reservations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...song was described by The Orlando Sentinel's Jim Abbott as a recreation of..." - Lower case "T" before the newspaper title.
  • "Few of the reviews at Metacritic had substantive comments on the collaboration when included among her group of collaborations." - Perhaps change the first "collaboration" to "duet"?

Those are the only issues that I have noticed. Pyrrhus16 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support My issues have been resolved. Great article. Pyrrhus16 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire article seems to be essentially a compilation of stats and quotes. Nowhere does it actually describe what the song is about. What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about? "It's primarily a country song,[20] but it contains gospel influences.[21]" Please elaborate (as an aside, should avoid using contractions in formal writing).
    • I am going to have to get back to you on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the LEAD, I note that this is a song from the 1960s and that expectations should be calibrated against its peers rather than against 21st century music articles. This article for example does not have a music tour with a confirmed playlist including this song or a list of promotional appearances. I am pretty sure it did not appear on American Bandstand or The Ed Sullivan Show. Musical guest appearances on late night TV and morning news shows were not common in that era. Thus, the article compensates by talking about the album tour and major appearances before the next album was produced under the assumption that most performances made after Ray Charles Invites You To Listen was released and before the next album was released probably included the top-charting song from the album. That is an example of expectation calibration for 1960s music. In terms of "What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about?" We are limited on what he was thinking about. From what I gather it was a song Steagall wrote while recovering from polio or soon thereafter. I can not tell what relationship in his life inspired the song. I'll add what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source says that Charles used a completely different voice when singing this song. Also from this source, who are the Raelettes, and why aren't they mentioned in the article?
  • has the song been part of the soundtrack for any notable films? (Fassbinder's Gods of the Plague is one example; surely there must be more). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt.

I have a few issues, though I'm leaning to support.

Lede
  • " the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration " There needs to be either a plural for "Awards" or something like "for" in there.
*"ll had duet vocal arrangements." perhaps, "has been sung as a duet" or similar? I would fold the next sentence into this one, too, perhaps with something like "most recently (as of 2012) by ..."
*" It was released " I would say "The song" for "It". I don't think there's great confusion it just "sounds better"."
  • "Covers have also appeared on some artists' compilation albums who never released "Here We Go Again" as a single." Maybe "Cover versions have appeared on albums by a number of artists, even some who did not release it as a single."
Original version
  • You may want to make clearer what the connection of the contract expiration is to Charles' desire to appeal across genre lines. The fact that the labels (I assume) specialized in certain kinds of music may be lost on the reader.
  • I am not sure I even understand your point. He signed a 3-year contract with ABC in 1959. He wanted to wait until he built up a track record with them before experimenting with country. He resigned with ABC several times thereafter. He did not change albums to do country.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps I misunderstood the passage.
  • "a lot of" possibly a bit informal.
  • While Ray Charles Invites You to Listen is introduced in the lede, it should (in my view) be introduced in the body as well.
  • It might be convenient to mention the year the song came out before you mention the year that it was reused in.
  • Do you really want to start the "composition" subsection with so much biographical detail about Steagall? It had me scratching my head, a bit.
  • The origins of the song are now at issue based on a currently unresolved set of concerns. I am not sure where to put the Steagall content. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a significant concern, as you have thought about it, I will withdraw it.
  • "Nevada Casino performances," query capitalization of Casino.
  • "a writer for Billboard magazine said that" I would say "wrote", myself. Consider reversing the order of the two sentences.
  • "his background singers" consider putting these in parenthesis or a footnote, it is awkward as it is.
Nancy Sinatra
  • "which was later remastered and reissued in 1996." I don't think this is important enough to put in the introductory sentence to this topic. Suggest moving or deleting that info and combining the first two sentences.
  • was a "smooth" An odd phrasing.
  • calling it a "fine" performance. This seems a bit unremarkable. I would either lose this bit of faint praise or put in something more interesting.
*"The following week it debuted on the Hot 100 chart at number 98.[55] The song then spent two weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart,[56] with a high of 98" The two bits of information about 98 can be combined, surely. Also, it seems a bit odd that you are calling it the "Hot 100" chart and THEN the more full "US Billboard Hot 100 chart". Usually the more thorough one would come first.
I played with it a bit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Allmusic databases, 1969 was the final year in her career that Sinatra reached the Hot 100 chart." If it was with this song, say so. If it was not, say what song.
  • "According to Allmusic the original track was 3:09, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it was 3:11." Perhaps better for a footnote.
Norah Jones, etc.
  • I am not a musical expert, but I think this has something to do with the way a song is faded out and how much space is put between songs. I believe the same recording has been used. I am not a musical person capable of explaining the actual details that cause these differences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough,--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the Sinatra and Jones versions selected for discussion? You say it's been recorded lots of times. What's going on with these two (and the original) in particular?
  • These are the versions that I have been able to find WP:RSed content. Having recently become aware of a fourth charting version, I would not be surprised to have sufficient content for a Section for the Roy Clark version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the record, the two singers' vocals are in harmony" I would move later in the paragraph, and avoid "harmony" due to the other use (or change the other). This sentence might make a good conclusion to the paragraph.
  • i would suggest dividing the paragraph with all the reviews at least once.
  • "the song was nominated in two categories" I would suggest making it clearer we are talking about the new version.
  • The material about U2, and the distinction between song and record of the year should probably be consigned to footnotes.
  • I sort of feel that in an article with no other footnotes like that this content would be lost. Although, it is not tremendously important to this article, it would be buried as the only factual content footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opening week sales earned Charles his highest charting album in over 40 years." Suggest merging into prior sentence with ", Charles' highest-charting album in over 40 years".
  • "Digital singles sales saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the US Billboard Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. "Here We Go Again" was the download sales leader among the albums tracks, but the other 12 tracks totaled 52,000 digital downloads.[92][93]" the number of digital single sales for this song might be helpful. Also, "albums tracks"??
  • How does the 2004 release of the song, as part of an album download, but obviously available individually, with the January 2005 release?
  • When an album is released, you can buy any individual songs by digital download immediately regardless of the singles release schedule for the album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song charted for a week" This sentence has "chart" or "charted" in it five times. Suggest two would be better.
Other versions
  • I think the discussions of the track time can be omitted, or dropped to a footnote. The reader is probably not going to care very much whether the song is 3:05 or 3:08
  • "The album included a track entitled "Here We Go Again". The album was released on March 29, 2011." combine
  • " but it is not clear what he felt of the album version." I would omit. It doesn't help the reader.
Good effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this distance, no one is going to care, besides, entertainment figures don't seem to age like normal folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the file and will remove the FU image if a reviewer requests it. I would rather remove the 1961 photo since she was a brunette and wearing her hair differently, in addition to the fact that the photo is 8 years before the album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all issues are resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 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)/archive3&oldid=1138462618"