# Talk:Remember December

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)