# Talk:Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

I am requesting an ogg sample of the song for the "Music and lyrics" section. It IS NEEDED to become better. I would do it myself, but I cannot download any program due to various reasons. Pllease upload the file if it is possible. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help with the music structure of "Falling Down." Add the notes and chord progressions if possible to help the article (with a reliable note sheet source). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was the music video section narrowed down. Look at GA or FA articles like Just Dance or a lot of Madonna ones. The source for a description of the music video is the music video. Plus the lead has to summarize as per WP:LEAD. -- 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the video description. The lead does summarize. There's a fine line between summarize and repeat, and the earlier version crossed it.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
O.K. So I agree with the lead more or less, but what about saying when the music video was filmed. How is that excessive? -- 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The music video section has to have a source and the video is the best one. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead has been altered again by ip's and does NOT summarize the article at all. -- 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
True. It'll have to wait until tonight, though, because I can't revert either: between you and the editor that removed the video summary, I wound up close to 3RR myself.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Waited twenty four hours and made the following edits:
expanded on live performances
summarized lead in a short manner
toned down judgmental language
I think with that, this will hopefully make a happy compromise. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the material sourced to Twitter, the original research regarding the reasons for its airplay figures, the specific link to a primary source for the summary, and made one grammar fix.—Kww(talk) 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why was this removed, since it is her OFFICIAL Twitter account it is reliable. That information was not excessive and is then backed-up by a third-party source, The Examiner. No point in deleting it. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
All the Examiner reported was the existence of the tweet. Official or not, tweets are unreliable sound-bites, and shouldn't be included in articles.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
How is it unriliable if she said she filmed it that day? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in here; in my opinion, Kww is right. As a rule of thumb, Twitter should not be used in most cases; in fact, WP:TWITTER redirects to say Twitter, like most self published sources, is not acceptable. The exceptions follow beneath the WP:TWITTER section at WP:SELFPUB, which says self published sources like Twitter are allowable when the author is speaking about his or herself. In such cases, it is important to say exactly what the source says, and not to infer anything (true for any source, but especially potentially unreliable ones). If Gomez says she was being fitted, we can only say that she was being fitted. Liquidluck (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen this done before except at their album page, Kiss & Tell. I have only seen the ref incorporated into the other material as is done in the "Charts and peaks" section chart with the ref placed together with the chart names instead of using a separate DEDICATED column for ref..Iknow23 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I had put it like that in order not to get confused with what sources what. Because since the fers usually go where the dates are (having rowspan=2 will make them appear as in the same country). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. It does look simpler and less cluttered the way it is now, though.Iknow23 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that a CD single is claimed. But the ref states Release Type is "DI". Doesn't that mean DIGITAL? Compare with Another Cinderella Story - Original Soundtrack, it shows Release Type: CD.One example: A quick check at Amazon does NOT show a CD single but "MP3 Download" only for "Falling Down".So as far as I know, yes FALLING DOWN will be on a CD, the Full album Kiss & Tell as ONE of its tracks, but NOT on a CD as a "single"Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, look at the reference in the release history (allmusic).Allmusic does not put any singles that were not released physically, check the singles page (if so Tell Me Something I Don't Know would be there). And look at Miley Cyrus's page (Party in the U.S.A. is not there because it was only digital). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"Allmusic does not put any singles that were not released physically" Are you sure, where is that stated? Not ALL singles have a physical release. Where is the Physical CD single for "Falling Down" available?What is the difference then between their listing Release Type "DI" and Release Type "CD"?? Why the two different types? It must mean something. The other songs you mention they might just not have listed?
Here's a non-physical release on their site:
E-single with Release type "DI" Doesn't "DI" mean "DIgital Release?"Iknow23 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Removing CD format from article. It can be restored if a ref is found to "unambiguously support the information" per WP:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."Iknow23 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I made this change because someone had edited it so it talked about the Wizards of Waverly Place being released on iTunes. In addition, there's no reason for this article to try to document the relationship between Wizards of Waverly Place:The Movie and the Wizards of Waverly Place series. It's pretty obvious, and no need to belabor the point.
I made this change because the lead is supposed to summarize the whole article.
I made this change because the original version had horrible grammar.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I get those edits, their not big. The ones I have troubles with are the merging of a chart performance and charts section. Plus, also that the Radio release isn't in the release history anymore, what is up with that? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the picture caption was in better detail before and the live performances section was deleted. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Addressing those points:
The chart information is all there now. I think the current order is more logical and typical, with the "Chart Performance" and the "Charts" sections being adjacent to each other.
The long picture caption was too long, and stretched into the next section.
Your sources don't support a radio release, it only documents a special broadcast on Radio Disney. I'll look into proper sourcing for a radio release in the morning. I know mediabase has it, but I don't know how to get the listing without having a logon to search for it.
—Kww(talk) 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on http://addboard.mediabase.com/SongAddHistory.asp?sngcde=GOMEFD , it's at least been registered with Mediabase, but no station in the United States is playing it (with the possible exception of Radio Disney, because I don't think Mediabase covers them). I don't believe there has been a specific radio release.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, did not know that. Disagree about the picture's caption (in my browser it doesn't extend to the next section), merging of chart performance and charts, deletion of live performances and lead doesn't even summarize now (doesn't say anything about the music video or critics). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, do as you wish with the page... no longer editing it. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently changed all the commas to breaks on genre formats but one user keeps reverting them. I've stated breaks look nicer because they get rid of the cluttered look referenced genres tend to cause and improve readability. They claim that most GA/FA articles are of the format so it's some kind of standard and has to be commas to get the article promoted. At least, that's what I got from it. Any one else's thoughts?--Babyjazspanail (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


### Headings
Before actually reviewing, I see several problems with the headings. "Background and composition" contains way too much information about other things, such as live performances. The next section is also titled "composition..." I'm not really sure how to explain what should be changed, I'd fix it up myself, but I'm not sure that's allowed. Maybe you could split the sections up a bit into:
Background and release 
Composition 
Reception and chart performance 
Music video 
Charts 
Release history 
References
And there's also two references titles, remove one.
I will review the whole article after these main headlines are fixed up. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. However I don't think it would work. The Composition is paired with the reception because there is little about the composition. If you read the material, you could see that most reviewers just described it in their reviews, and it would be very small and impossible if split up. Also, reception includes two parts, the critical and commercial, and commercial reception is also known as chart performance. Live performances also do not warrant their own section, thus is why it is in the background as part of promotion. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're sure you can't find anything else to make those sections chunkier, it's all good. With that said there, all that I can see now is just the two reference sections, and chart performance should be under it's own heading. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I searched for about two hours straight when expanding the article and could not find anymore information. Fixing the double ref heading, and I will if you insist, but usually the commercial reception is combined with the critical in such a small bit of info (i.e. Bigger (Justin Bieber song), and Ice Cream Freeze (Let's Chill)). Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  03:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, that's fine. Yeah, that is true, but that content is not all reception, it also has composition in it, so it looks a bit messy. Oh, and also, couldn't you add a "credits and personnel" section as well? I'm sure that wouldn't be hard to find. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 03:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
But the composition is really not separate from the critical reception except for a sentence. I also do not have the liner notes for the album to add all credits, and in a quick search could not find them. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I still think you should do it anyway. I added the credits for you. I just went on a fansite and copied it from the album scans. Referenced it accordingly. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 04:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed there is no track listings section. I'm sure you can add one of those with ease. Digital download, at least. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I also added the track listing. So there are two sentences that are actual omposition only. Then there are just a few for the critical and the little sec. on the commercial. You want me to split all this up? Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not really sure. I just feel like everything's in the article, it just needs some reorganization. I think the part about the performances should be moved to the lead, as it doesn't fit in a background and release section at all. After that, that section is fine. Just having the chart performance under it's own header would make that part fine as well. But now that I think about it, about the live performance, the lead mentions dancing with the stars performance, so if you got sources or something, I'm sure you could expand and make a section for live performances. But if not, that's fine, it could work fine in the lead. After that, I think I'd be pretty good. I don't think there will be much things left for the actual reviewing. (LOL) xD ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, it is supposed to summarize all aspects, the performances are a main component, and should be intergrated into the article. I barely found a reference to support the DTWS performance period, I have exhausted resources trying to find information for this article. I did it because you suggested but "Background" would seem better as release is techincally kind of background and performances could fall under that because that is promotion for release which is background. The reason this reorganization seems iffy is because while it is a lot of information it is just bits and pieces of lots of different aspects, and if you were to separate them, it would be choppy and disintegrated. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  05:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
At least separate the chart performance section, and I will begin the review. I probably won't get to it until later today (tomorrow if you prefer, it's past midnight here so... :P) because I think I should get to bed now. I'll talk to you later! Do what you can. But don't stress too much over it! ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks!Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  05:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that that is all situated, I can review the actual content of the article. :)


### Lead
The lead is a bit short, isn't it? Maybe you should base it off of how Naturally (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) is. Just do what you can really.
It's really note much to add....its not as big as Naturally. However I did notice I forgot stuff from the music video and added that. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


### Infobox
Maybe add an alt to the cover. I don't think it's necessary, but it wouldn't hurt.
Done
Also, the infobox says a time of 3:04, while the track listing says 3:05.
Done. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  01:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


### Music video
In the place it's in, it kind of messes up the track listing line in the header. Maybe you could fix that, if not, I don't think it's that much of a problem, just wanted to point it out.
Well, if I make it smaller it's really no point in an image. If it is moved to the left, then it would mess up the actual words, so I think it may be good where it is at. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  01:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


### Track listing
Replace the normal dash with "–" or "—". It just looks better. :P
Done. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  01:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


### Release history
Maybe you could expand on it a little? Any possible radio addon dates? If you could, also convert it to the way Ego looks.
This is all I could fine, and it was not added to radio. What is in the release history and its style (if one is present at all) actually just depends on the editor and/or however the article is, because having a release history isn't even a requirement of WP:SONGS or MoS. Most of the time it is just to fill up the article. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :)  01:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am passing the article. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 06:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources number 3, 5, 16 and 19 don't work. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Selena has confirmed in many occasions "Naturally" as her first single and this single hasn't even sended to radio unlike "Naturally". Could we just consider "Falling Down" a promotional single? Wait for your responses! Anonpediann (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529030927/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/52896/Selena-Gomez-Drives-Fans-Wild-In-London to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/52896/Selena-Gomez-Drives-Fans-Wild-In-London
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)