Talk:Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHere We Go Again (Ray Charles song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 20, 2017.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 12, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 28, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 16, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 21, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although Ray Charles and Nancy Sinatra solos of "Here We Go Again" made Billboard's Hot 100, Charles' 2004 duet with Norah Jones became the second Grammy Record of the Year that did not?
Current status: Featured article

Chart[edit]

According to this edit the song charted in 1967 reaching 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 5 on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles chart.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strait version[edit]

Do we know what Strait album this was on and whether it was a B-side to anything that charted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was included on the album Holding My Own (Allmusic link). According to this, it was not included on any singles. Novice7 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really mean it was not a B-side to anything?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I searched through many archives and can confirm that it was an album cut. Novice7 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. since according to George_Strait_discography#1990s, he only released "Gone as a Girl Can Get" and "So Much Like My Dad", which had other songs as b-sides.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More covers[edit]

Eddy Arnold covered the song in 1972. It was not released, but was included on his album Lonely People. (link) Novice7 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly belongs in the other versions section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I found another cover by Red Steagall. It was included, as an album cut, on his 2007 album titled Here We Go Again, featuring Reba McEntire. (Cashbox magazine, Allmusic, Country Music About.com. Novice7 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find out what albums the Glen Campbell and Billy Vaughn versions were initially on?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this was the best ref I could find for the Vaughn album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a lot of threads discussing Discogs.com's reliability at WP:RSN. May I suggest this? I suppose we can use {{Cite music release notes}} in this case. Novice7 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That citation does not show that this song is on the album at issue and is in fact pointing to another album named Ode To Billy Joe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh sorry, I didn't see the link I gave points to a completely different album. I'm really sorry. And the template I meant was {{Cite album-notes}}. It can be used to source the album liner notes. I could not find any other source for the album. Novice7 (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing[edit]

Can we add Album track listing information. E.g., can we find a WP:RS that says this was track 1 on the B-side of the original studio album and is now the 6th of 10 tracks on the CD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations[edit]

Resolved

Can we get a source enumerating all the Grammy categories for which this song was nominated?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

We could use some reviews of the duet version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few. I'll post them here:

Novice7 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCA[edit]

What is the meaning of the RCA label on the cover art? The Billboard charts mention Reprise Records.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra was signed to both RCA and Reprise. The pressing seems to be released through RCA (probably an overseas pressing). Novice7 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source the double signing and add it to the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Novice7 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. With you two music specialist we may be able to drive this thing to FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is almost complete. This book seems to have information on the album and the song. I searched for it in the libraries nearby and could not find a copy. If anyone finds a copy, I think we could use it to expand the article a bit more. Novice7 (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Public Library does not have it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might have a copy. This, please do correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My local library has a copy of the "Updated commemorative edition", but I will probably not be able to add content from it until next weekend as I have exams this week. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also have access to these books and a Rolling Stone interview (might not be so helpful). Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! These can be used to expand the article more. Adabow, any chance of getting a Nancy Sinatra bio too? Novice7 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing sorry. :-( All that my search returned was this, lol. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it's okay. Novice7 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Charles:Man and Music contains absolutely nothing about HWGA, but Ray Charles: The Birth of Soul mentions it two or three times. I'll add the little content from it using the shortened footnotes; feel free to reformat. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McEntire omission[edit]

It seems pretty clear to me that the song was omitted from McEntire's album because she and her other collaborators are bigger stars than Steagall. I don't know how to source that and make it clear for the readers. It is really just a POV inference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search and could not find anything relating the duet and her album (yet). I'll do a thorough research soon. I feel she didn't include the song on her album as Steagall already put it on his album? (my own research). I'll surely try to find a source for the omission. Novice7 (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that he put it on his album is a reason not to put it on hers. I think it is more commmon for collaborations to be on both parties albums when they are released somewhat contemporaneously.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did a research, and I still could not find a source to show the omission. However, I did find a review of Steagall's Here We Go Again. Novice7 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is good material to add to the article. I wish the Chicago Library had that album (or albums with the Martin, Campbell or Sinatra version). I have the Straight version and the tribute version on order at my local branch. If any of you can find samples of these other versions they would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't have those albums too, at the moment. I'll try to get them. Novice7 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I get an iTunes Store top-up I'll download Sinatra's version, if no-one has uploaded a sample first. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is an iTunes Store top-up? Is it just the regular iTunes store? Personally, I have a policy against paying to improve WP. If I can get something free at the library, I do so. Oddly, I paid $2.50 for roundtrip bus fare last week to get info out of Billboard and a copy of Modern Sounds which has a copy of the original recording. I guess $.99 iTunes would have been cheaper than the free library.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant a voucher of iTunes Store credit. Most CDs at my library cost $2 to get out, so a single song download is probably better. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am patient, I can get everything I want for free at my local branch, by using the hold system. You are allowed to make five requests at a time. However, depending on how long the queue is it can take months sometimes to get your request. It took me three months to get 21 (Adele album) last week. I wanted to have the original version in time for the WP:DYK so I rushed and went downtown to get a copy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Nokia Ovi voucher. I'll download the Sinatra version. There's the Steagall and Campbell versions too. Novice7 (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think we have to go out of our way to get any more versions. In the next month or so, I should get the tribute album and the Strait version from Chicago Public Library. Both are unnecessary. The Sinatra version would be nice, but it charted modestly. Martin, Steagall, Cambpell and Vaughn are all just lagniappe. Don't go out of your way to find any of them, but if you can find them easily please do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Please do let me know if I should upload the Sinatra version. Novice7 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we have it, I would like to see if she sang half as good as she looked. Don't go out of your way to get it, but it would help the article if we had it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, she is ok, in my opinion. The b-side to the single "Memories" is much better. I've uploaded the sample. I downloaded this song and "Memories" off the remastered edition of Nancy. The song is of poor quality though (maybe because it's very old). I have to hear the McEntire version. Novice7 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean she sings O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (although she sounds like Barbra Streisand at some places). Novice7 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I want to go there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duet music sample[edit]

Resolved

I have just changed the duet music sample so that it is from the same section of the song as the other two samples. 10% of the official length of the song is 23.9 seconds and the sample is now 26 seconds. WP:SAMPLE says: "As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." Should I cut off the first three seconds to make it under 10% or just let it slide since it is a rule of thumb?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we could revert to the prior sample and switch the samples above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone back to the original, I am leaning toward reverting the duet and changing the 1960s samples to match.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You can still listen to the prior versions on the file description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I have reverted the duets section to a 23 second sample and changed verses in the original to match. Can you find the same verse in the Sinatra selection?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backup on the original[edit]

It would be good to find out who sang backup on the original (and who played organ).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra instrumentation[edit]

Can we source the Sinatra instrumentation. It sounds like a string instrument rather than an organ. Probably as written.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like violin and an unknown country music instrument. The backup vocalists for this version are The B.J. Baker Singers and The Blossoms (from Discogs). Maybe we should ask Sinatra herself about the song? There's her family forum, where she answers questions of fans. Novice7 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is violin, steel guitar and drums and bass. The liner notes mentions these instruments. Novice7 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the liner notes stuff with {{Cite album-notes}} and the discogs content. This is all encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added backup vocalists. However, I am doubtful about its reliability. Maybe we should ask someone from WP:WikiProject Country Music? Novice7 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liner notes from a mass produced album like that are a reliable source. Add whatever the source says. You can also drop a note at Country Music, but I would just go with the source. I think guitar, violin and drums are all there. I don't know the fine differences between the violin and the bass, but I think the notes are correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove the backup vocalists from Sinatra version. As I said, I found it on Discogs. Also, the liner notes does not explicitly say "Here We Go Again" uses violin or pedal steel guitar. As I have the digital copy of the album, it does not have anything related to the instruments. Novice7 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs query[edit]

What is the difference between this and this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first was released in the US by ABC Records, the second in Germany by Philips. Discogs isn't a reliable source though, so use {{cite album-notes}} if you want to use any such info. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would I use {{cite album-notes}} with discogs content?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant {{cite music release notes}}. Copy the release details from the Discogs page (format, label, year etc) into the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you formally cite something that is not an WP:RS how does it become an RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Discogs is "unreliable" is because it is user-created – like WP. But the information is usually correct, as it is generally taken from the release notes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not comfortable citing in that manner unless you can show me instructions from WP:SONGS or WP:ALBUMS that say this is the way to do things.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, now that I have put all this effort into this article, I am going to shoot for WP:FA and hope you two are on board. I don't think we should use any sources that would put an FA in jeopardy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPM[edit]

I've added the RPM chart for Sinatra version. It stayed for five weeks on the AC chart. Three have already been included, the rest are here: Week June 23, 1969 and June 30, 1969. Charles' version did not chart in Canada. Novice7 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example of a song with a lot of samples[edit]

Maybe someday, we will come across many of the versions of this song. The Power of Love is an example of a song with a lot of samples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

Hey guys, I hope you are still watching. Which version do you think we should include in the article File:Here We Go Again (Nelson-Marsalis ft.Jones).ogg or File:09 Here We Go Again (Nelson-Marsalis ft.Jones)2.ogg?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the first version. It focuses on both the vocals and instruments, while the second version, in my opinion focuses more on vocals. Novice7 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it and if contrary responses come, we can change files for at least the next 7 days (orphaned fair use clips get deleted after 7 days).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Novice7, the first version would be more appropriate because it features the vocals and instruments giving a better approach to the style of the whole album.--GDuwenTell me! 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

  • ...from his 1967 album Ray Charles Invites You to Listen (catalog number ABCS-595).[1] - Say what album it was (first, second) instead of year; catalog number not necessary in lead; reference not necessary in lead
  • ...appearing on the 2004 Genius Loves Company album.[2] - Make it "appearing on Genius Loves Company (2004)"; reference not necessary in lead
  • The original version spent 12 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 15 for three weeks. - Change "12 weeks" to "twelve weeks"; put consecutive in between "three" and "weeks"
  • It spent several weeks in the UK Singles Chart top 200, reaching number 38. - "on the chart" not "in the chart"; "top 200" not necessary as UK Singles Chart provides that information in its article; change "reaching number 38" to "and eventually peaked at number 38"
  • It also spent 13 weeks on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles top 50 chart. - Change to "It also spent 13 weeks on Billboard's Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles chart."
  • When Genius Loves Company was released, it set numerous sales records. - Not necessary to this article
  • ...its co-writer Red Steagall (2007, with Reba McEntire).[3] and Willie Nelson and Wynton Marsalis featuring Jones (2011). - Reference not needed in lead; make continuous sentence
  • Covers appear on compilation albums... - Make it "Covers of the song appear on compilation albums..."
  • Although its two most successful versions have been rhythm and blues/soul music recordings... - Add comma at end
  • ...most of its other notable covers have been on country music albums and its only - End sentence at "albums"; start new sentence at "Its"
  • "Here We Go Again" is a country music standard... - Genre is not country; fix wiki-link of "standard" to "Traditional pop music
Resolved issues from Novice7 (talk)
Nancy Sinatra version
  • Make it a subsection under an "Other versions" section
  • The cover, which according to programming guides - Add comma at end
  • ...was produced by Billy Strange. - Needs reference
  • The b-side to the single... - Capitalize "B" on "B-side"
  • The Reprise Records catalog number was 0821. - Not sure if necessary to article content


Chart history

  • For the week ended June 7, the song spent - Specify year
  • ...but was no longer in the Hot 100. - Change "in" to "on"
  • ...slipped from the chart for the week ended June 21. - Specify year
  • ...the week dated June 2, 1969. - Reword phrase
  • ...before peaking at number 21 for the week of June 16. - Specify year
  • It spent two more weeks on that chart. - Change "It" to "The song" to avoid too much repetition
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.
  • Why? Other songs called "Here We Go Again" are not related to this song. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Section should be titled "References"
  • References 5, 96 - "Discogs" needs to be wiki-linked
  • Self-publishing sources do not need to include the publishing company. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 12 - "Nielsen Business Media" needs to be wiki-linked
  • Reference 76 - "Slant Magazine" needs to be italicized
  • Slant Magazine is an online-only magazine, so it is optionally italicised. The key is consistency, and throughout the article is is unitalicised. —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of this review is your personal preference and WP:WGN. Thanks for the review, we appreciate it heaps :-), but in future stick to the criteria (WP:WGN can help with this). —Andrewstalk 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for referring this link to me. It has made me understand the GA criteria better. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Section should be titled "Works cited"


Infobox
  • Specify full release date if possible  Done
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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  Done
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Nothing else is needed here because this issue has been addressed above. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Sinatra version

Chart history

Track listing

Norah Jones/Ray Charles duet version
  • Opening paragraph should have a "Background" subsection  Done

Chart history

  • First paragraph talks about the album it came from. Therefore, it is not necessary to information in this article.  Done
  • 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  Done
  • 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  Done
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}}
  • I looked at the reference, and you can actually edit the publisher. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.

Documenting sources for deleted NFCC content[edit]

Nancy Sinatra version: http://sinatrafamily.com/forum/attachments/nancy-sinatra-9/4164d1057178482-nancy-sinatra-45s-ep-pic-sleeves-herewegoagain
Jones/Charles duet: http://bigpondmusic.com/album/ray-charles-with-norah-jones/here-we-go-again3

3 December 1967 Ed Sullivan Show[edit]

Is there any way to tell what song(s) he performed on his 3 December 1967 appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citation error[edit]

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) contains two definitions of the named ref "AMGtC" and a "/" invocation: 

<ref name=AMGtC>{{cite book|title=All Music Guide to Country: The Experts' Guide to the Best Country Recordings|isbn=0879304758|page=447|editor=Woodstra, Chris, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Vladimir Bogdanov, and Michael Erlewine |year=1997|publisher=[[Backbeat Books]]|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7Mo7xm-X1r4C&pg=PA447&dq=%22Red+Steagall%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PGzOT7Vdxp7bBe3n5b8M&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Red%20Steagall%22%20%22Here%20We%20Go%20Again%22&f=false}}</ref>

<ref name=AMGtC>{{cite book|title=The Virgin encyclopedia of country music|isbn=0753502364|page=405|author=Larkin, Colin|year=1998|publisher=[[Virgin Publishing]]|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wi_aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Don+Lanier%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&dq=%22Don+Lanier%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pXTOT5uGE-WL2AXY5cXSDA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA}}</ref>

<ref name=AMGtC/>

The second definition is simply omitted from the rendered article; they are all collated together using the first definition; see here. The first ref is presumably correct. The second could be fixed by simply renaming it. It is not clear which the "/" invocation should really be linking to without a review of both the article content and the sources. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

Richard3120, based on the resource found while working on Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini with you, I am now aware of international chart information for the original version and the acclaimed version of this song. Can you add chart tables for this info and any other chart info that you know how to find with your chart expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Here_We_Go_Again_(Ray_Charles_song)&oldid=1207469161"