Talk:Remember December

Remember December has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Remember December is part of the Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato album) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
April 24, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Demi Lovato Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demi Lovato, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Demi Lovato 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.Demi LovatoWikipedia:WikiProject Demi LovatoTemplate:WikiProject Demi LovatoDemi Lovato articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Music video and Fanmade rap remixes" section[edit]

Do we really need that? Why not just rename it "Music video" and put a brief summary of the video? That kinda makes more sense to me. -Mike R.--71.255.35.95 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demi-Lovato-Remember-December.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:Demi-Lovato-Remember-December.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

So this was released as a single but it didn't chart on any US chart or anywhere else around the world? Is this article notable enough to exist? Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It charted in the UK :) Pancake (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug[edit]

There is a bug in the Article Feedback Tool on this page. No matter what you rate it, the averge will always show up as 1. The bug has been reported at Bugzilla as bug #30227. Pancake (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Remember December/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oz ^talk 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Infobox

Studio Wishbone
(Los Angeles, California) – It makes more sense if you set it out like that

Lead

"Remember December" is a song performed by American singer–songwriter Demi Lovato.It was written – add a space between "Lovato." and "It"
It was released as the album's second and final single on November 17, 2009 via Hollywood Records. – Change "via" to "through"
The single achieved minor – Change "The single" to "Remember December"

Background

"Remember December" was written by John Fields, Demi Lovato and Anne Preven, with production done by Fields – Change "done" to "handled"
It was recorded by Fields at Studio Wishbone, Los Angeles, California – add "in" before "Wishbone" and "Los Angeles", and link "Los Angeles, California" as well
Link guitars, synths, backing vocals, drums, and percussion

Reception

No issues

Music video

Did the video get any reviews? If so add some

No it didn't. Pancake (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings

No issues

Credits and personnel

No issues

Charts

There needs to a space between this section and the References section

References

References 3, 7, 10 – Use "cite web" instead of "cite news"

External links

No issues

OVERALL REVIEW

I have decided to put the article on hold because there are still some minor mistakes affecting the prose quality of the article. Also, the article needs a release history table. I will give you seven days to fix these mistakes. Oz ^talk 07:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done! :) Pancake (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one more thing, was the song released as a single in the US? If not, then it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead that it failed to chart in the US. Overall I am passing the article. Keep up the good work! Oz ^talk 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably sent to Radio Disney or something, but I can't really prove it, so I will remove the sentence. Pancake (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power pop[edit]

I'm against the usage of power pop used as a genre here. The citation does refer to the song as power pop, but on the sidebar of the genres in that same article, it doesn't mention it at all and refers to it as "teen pop" and "dance-pop". This is especially confusing as power pop is described as "a cross between the crunching hard rock of the Who and the sweet melodicism of the Beatles and Beach Boys, with the ringing guitars of the Byrds thrown in for good measure" on the same site. [1]. I suggest we remove it for these reasons. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that the album is teen pop and dance-pop, not the song. And that you're "against the usage of power pop" is WP:OR. Read WP:VNT. Pancake (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research if you are using terms out of context which you are and VNT is an essay. If we have articles that don't agree with what is being said in other articles, than I will stamp this article with the "Contradict-other" template. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is still verifiability, not truth. The Allmusic article calls this a power pop song and why are you certain that's false? It has influences of synthpop, but it's still a power pop song, as per the source given. Pancake (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with verifiability, but the one sites own discussion on the genre does not back up what is said about the song, than it should not be included. This does not even go with wikipedia's own definition of the genre power pop which would lead to me adding the "contradiction tag". Not to mention the BBC refer to it as "pop/rock" here. So which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's CBBC, so I'm pretty sure that review was written by a kid. Either way it's anonymous and is not to be included. Pancake (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to include it. The song is for a youth audience so it's on a youth oriented site. Because you can't find a name, what dictates that an age would make it any more reliable? If it helps, Digital Spy also refers to it as pop rock source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with power pop? We should edit by a WP:NPOV. If a reliable source is calling it "power pop", what's wrong then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that calling this power pop on that site doesn't agree with the sites own definition of the genre. I've found two citations saying pop/rock instead and I believe that's better and is not against the definition we have. Why are you guys so keen on having pop/rock if I've found two reliable sources? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The singer herself says that it diverges from her usual pop rock sound. 2. The CBBC review is anonymous, anyone could have written it. It's not a reliable source. Pancake (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what a singer says about their own song's style as we need secondary sources on wikipedia. Regardless, I've found a source that says pop/rock that is very notable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]