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

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
      • I don't have a release date. Maybe my music co-authors do.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Since a specific release date is not available, the year will be fine. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 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

• ...(previously Young Adult Chart),... - Not needed  Done
  • Not done. Novice7 ( talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Concur. why not WP:PRESERVE-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • A response from the reviewer is needed here.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Why didn't we PRESERVE the Reprise catalog information?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)  Done reply
  • Can the reviewer comment on the removed Reprise catalog information?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Catalog information is only necessary on the discography page of the artist. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Track listing

• Song info should have numerical layout (see: Born This Way (song)#Track listing and formats as an example)  Done
  • I will leave this to my co-authors who are music guys.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Novice7 ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Not sure if all information in paragraph is necessary to section  Done
  • See above.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • What content is at issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
      • It was the information about the record companies, but I see now how that explains the content of the section. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Norah Jones/Ray Charles duet version

• Opening paragraph should have a "Background" subsection  Done
  • Not sure what you are asking. The opening paragraph begins with a similar style to the two previous versions.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Chart history

• First paragraph talks about the album it came from. Therefore, it is not necessary to information in this article.  Done
  • The point was to show that this was the most successful song on a successful album. Without the context of the album's success something is lost.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
      • What does noted mean?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
        • It means that I agree with your defense on the issue, and that the problem is now solved. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• 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
  • I will reconsider this after the first paragraph issue is resolved.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Is this noted with the above item?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
      • After looking at this again, it seems OK to put this information in this part of the section. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• 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
  • Maybe not, but I don't think it should necessarily be removed.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Noted. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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

• Why not? — Andrew _{s talk} 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

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. — Andrew _{s talk} 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

• What is the issue one this item?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 10:03, 31 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