Talk:Round & Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

Round & Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Selena Gomez (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Selena Gomez, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Selena GomezWikipedia:WikiProject Selena GomezTemplate:WikiProject Selena GomezSelena Gomez articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Before erasing it, read it

I've seen the history page and some people tried to make the article before, but it keeps being erased and returning back to the redirect. I ask you, please, don't erase it, improve it. We know this WILL chart because its already charting on iTunes and it may as well receive notable cover versions and awards. OAVJunior (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it will chart, it only matters whether it has charted. iTunes doesn't count, because it's listed on WP:BADCHARTS. I've restored the redirect. Please wait until the song actually passed WP:NSONGS before undoing the redirect.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Release

I know iTunes says its release date is June 22, but it's been available since the 20th. I mean, it's currently the 21st, a day before the supposed release, and it's already top 20 on the iTunes chart. Here's also a forum to show proof that the song was released before the supposed date. I'm not sure if I can use that as a reference for Wikipedia, though, since it is a forum post. I changed the date already, but I couldn't find a good source to prove it, even though it's true. Tcatron565 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Performances?

I noticed that the information under this headline keeps changing. I've watched Selena on all of these shows, but the band didn't perform on any, except America's Got Talent. I also went to the source to see if they are set to perform in the future, but it listed no such dates. Please help. Thanks! Roselily6 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section is now Live performances and promotion. Shows where Selena appears, even though not performing, is considered promotion for the single as it is mentioned. Candy o32 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed that it's changed again and now includes promotion, too. However, Selena didn't promote the new album on those shows, except for one or maybe two, I believe. It was really only a mention of the music though, so should it be included? Thanks! Roselily6 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You are correct. Selena DIDN'T promote "Round & Round" on these shows. She promoted "Ramona & Beezus", and if the song WAS mentioned, it wasn't even what she came there for in the first place!Selenaismylife555 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know she talked about the song on Lopez Tonight, but I'm sure she didn't on David Letterman. Can someone please help? I'm very confused!Roselily6 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article includes picture of one of the producers?

Why not add pictures of the other producers too? Or the songwriters? Just wondering how far this is anticipated to go?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, with the exception of Fefe Dobson, no other songwriters or producers have free images. Secondly, in a review, Bill Lamb of About.com only noted Rudolf in particular. Candy o32 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess I am more concerned over the first impression that having the picture there gives. ("A picture is worth a thousand words"-picture is seen first before the caption.) Since it is applied to this song's article, it makes one think that he is playing guitar for this song. (It could be true, by the way, but I don't see a credits section that states so.) If a source cannot be given that he plays guitar on this song, wouldn't it be better to use a different picture of him without playing a guitar?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That image is the only free image of Rudolf, and it is not meant to say he is playing guitar, just to add an image to enhance in article, nothing major. Candy o32 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the end of the world, but I think it gives the impression that he plays guitar on this song.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just like saying that if a singer-songwriter is credited with writing someone else's song, but the only image of them is performing at a concert, then that would be giving them an impression that they are singing the song to. No. If that's what's only available and its free, you go with what you have. Candy o32 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Round & Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead

"It was released on June 22, 2010 as the lead single from the band's second album, A Year Without Rain" can you add the year the album was released, like other GA-Class song articles. Ex: "It was released on June 22, 2010 as the lead single from the band's second album, A Year Without Rain (2010)

Critcal reception

"Bill Lamb of About.com praised Gomez's vocal maturity and rock edge likely thanks to producer Kevin Rudolf, calling the song "effortless" and would "sound good after months of airplay." Read the source, and it didn't say "likey thanks" which sounds orish to me.

Music Video

"The filming of the video was made by Phillip Andelman, and took place in late May 2010 in Budapest, Hungary during the filming of her film, Monte Carlo." source?

Live performances and promotion

"and on Blue Peter on September 28, 2010" why not say "and on Blue Peter on the following day"

Notes

Is Bop and Tigerbeat reliable sources?

File:Roundandround.ogg has a length of 31s, however, per SAMPLE, "10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 seconds".

Overall, I'm going to put this article On hold to allow further responses and fixes. Good luck, AJona1992 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Round & Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Please complete the points kindly listed by Hekerui.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The article passes Manual of Style.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	'Track listing' 'UK Promo CD Single' is not referenced.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has all the major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused on the subject.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	Failed, no edits since 18 December.

Discussion

Ask questions if there is a need for that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAILED – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 11:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Additional comments

Lead

The lead sentence "critics taking note of the song's instant attraction beyond the expected demographic" is vague since the demographic is not mentioned.
"second highest charting single" "behind 'Who Says'" - the song did not chart behind the other song but later
according to whom did the single chart "moderately" in other countries? that sounds like original research
"The song's lyrics speak of a relationship going around in circles." - one can rephrase that image, it makes no sense as such
what is "the song's middle eight"? that should be explained when it comes up
"Kylie Minogue circa 2001" and "Kesha-esque" should be attributed, these are opinions and not matter-of-fact

Reception

"praised Gomez's vocal maturity and rock edge likely thanks to producer" - the sentence does not flow well, should be clarified, the reviewer thinks the "edge" is likely to the producer
the section uses many quotes whose ideas can be paraphrased in own words - we should try to minimize usage of copyrighted material
the use of non-intuitive piped linked is deprecated
wikilinks in quotes should be avoided per MOS:LINK - specifically the links to Miley Cyrus, Can't Be Tamed and Hilary Duff
"Propelled by a debut at number fifteen on the US Hot Digital Songs chart ..." - this suggests causality where none exists for effect, please use plain language
"The song performed moderately in international markets." - this statement is unsourced and sounds like original research, as mentioned above

Music video

"The filming of the video was made by Phillip Andelman..." - this is unclear, was he the director? if so, why not simply state that?
"donning spy apparel", "and other duties" - these statements are unclear/vague
the Nadine Cheung statement can be rephrased in one's own words and does not need to be copy-pasted in the article

I would like to see these issues addressed before a reassessment is considered. Hekerui (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must thank-you for this review. I am sorry if I made any inconvenience. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]