Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romance (Luis Miguel album)/archive2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:27, 24 April 2015

Romance (Luis Miguel album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. Since the last FAC, the article has gone through another copyedit and peer review.

Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site as they only appear in PDF files. Erick (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

Support, I already went through the article and gave my review on the talk page. Good work Erick, jona ^(talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AJona1992. Erick (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cambalachero

Image review:

File:Romance.jpg is a non-free image, with an appropiate rationale. Seems Ok.
File:Armando Manzanero2010.jpg has a good license, but it may be useful to add a description in English to it.
File:Luis Miguel No Se Tu.ogg is a non-free sound file, with an appropiate rationale. Seems Ok.
File:Luismigueltour.jpg seems to have a good license, but the description should be improved, with something else than just "Luis Miguel". Also, the date "October" should be improved to 13 October 2008 (the date of uploading) or just October 2008 (if there is doubt if the photo was taken the same day than it was uploaded).

More to come. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an English description for Manzanero's picture per your request. In regards to the last file however, I'm having doubts whether the uploader truly did have rights to upload that photo. In fact, Crisco 1492 told the reason none of the photos were used when Romances became TFA was because he had doubts any of the photos uploaded on Commons were truly free. So I went to Flickr and uploaded a file that has proper licensing which is now used in this article. Erick (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the images seem to be OK now --Cambalachero (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording: The image of Manzanero does not clarify it is him: for someone who is not familiar with them, it may be understood to be a photo of Luis Miguel (have in mind that Luis Miguel's picture comes later in the article, and the album cover has his face in shadows). Besides, the photo should be on the right, to be "looking" in the direction of the text. Add a comma between "tunes" and "which". There is a sentence in the third paragraph with two long comments between parentheses; try to reword it to avoid that. The last sentence is very long and repetitive, it may be better split into two or more sentences. --Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) All have been fixed Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singles and promotion: ~~The sentence that begins with "The music video for "No Sé Tú"..." is a bit complex and should be divided into two sentences. Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)~~ All fixed Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance: ~~If it is the all-time third-bestselling album, you may add which ones are the second and first. Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)~~ Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing: You should link Manzanero both times; the overlinking rule does not apply to elements of tables as this. And see if the other authors don't deserve an article; I guess that Chico Novarro should have one. Red links are not a problem when writing a featured article. Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right so, I've moved the picture of Manzanero to the right. I previously had "(pictured)" after "Manzanero" but I removed it after Nikkimaria said in the previous peer review that is not needed if the person is the sole focus of the photo. Since you brought up a very good point about readers not familiar with Miguel's appearance, I've re-added it. I've added the comma and I've reworked the three sentences to the best of my ability (my grammar isn't that good so that I had this article copy-edited by Miniapolis twice). I'm open to any suggestions if they still need improving. I added the other two best-selling albums of Mexico and linked all the composers and Manzanero again. Erick (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: It's been nearly two weeks since you've made a comment. I understand if you're really busy, but I'm afraid of the FAC closing due to a lack of activity. Erick (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I'm a bit busy. I hope that I can complete my re-review of the article, to check if things have been fixed, by tomorrow. Please don't close this FAC before that, I promise to do it as quickly as possible Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that everything was fine so that the FAC doesn't get archived due to lack of activity. Erick (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays. Everything has been fixed, so I will support this article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking your time and for the support Cambalahcero! Erick (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck from Simon Burchell

I'll pick up the spotcheck. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1. The 1987 year for signing with WEA is not in the cited source, nor are the years in which the songs were produced. There are some minor variations in the song titles (e.g. Un hombre busca a una mujer in the source, vs Busca una mujer in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added source for the year he signed on with WEA Latina from Billboard. If you're referring to the years in parenthesis after each album, according to MOS:ALBUMS. If not, then I need some clarifications. It's referred to as Busca una mujer in most sources such as Allmusic, but it might have been marketed as Un hombre busca una mujer in some regions.

I'm not familiar with the requirements for music articles, so I will just make notes as I check, and leave it to someone more familiar with music articles to decide whether this is acceptable - I was referring to the years in parenthesis, which are not cited (unless they are cited elsewhere in the article). I will check MOS though! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 3. Background and recording section, who had produced Miguel's records since he signed with the label - this is not in the cited source. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source that says Calderon produced the previous three albums mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. Erick (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 2, 4, 5. All OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

I'm so sorry that I've been so inactive lately and didn't respond to your request earlier!

Only one external link that we might be able to replace
Some red links in the track listing table that should be removed
The credits and personnel are so limited that I don't find the need to separate them by performance and technical subheads

I don't see any other issues that would prevent me from giving my support once these are addressed, since I am sure you will handle them! Great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thanks for the support! I looked up the toolserver but the only link is that it's having some trouble is working fine for me. As for the red links, Cambalachero suggested above to add them as they're fine for tables and Nikkimaria suggested on the peer review to split the credits into performance and non-performance credits. Cheers! Erick (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: WikiRedactor, the red links have been removed per SNUGGUMS comment below. Erick (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"Romance is the eighth studio album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel, which was released on November 19, 1991, by WEA Latina" should be two sentences
What benefit does File:Luis Miguel No Se Tu.ogg provide?
File:Luis miguel 328.jpg doesn't look like it benefits "legacy" section, though could potentially be used for Miguel promoting the album
Unlink the redlinked terms in tracklisting; they don't seem likely to have their own articles as per WP:REDNOT
Publisher for Los Angeles Times, The Baltimore Sun, and Chicago Tribune is Tribune Publishing
"The" is part of the name for The New York Times, and publisher is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.
For Billboard articles published between 1989 and 2009, publisher is Nielsen N.V.

Not too bad overall, but needs some fixing up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding publishers is optional per WP:PUBLISHERLINK, unless it is relevant to the article itself. Best, jona ^(talk) 01:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJona1992 I was only pointing out the ones incorrectly labelled, not saying to include/exclude publishers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, carry on then =) jona ^(talk) 01:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, thanks for your input. I split the the opening sentence into two sentences, removed the red links, and corrected the publishers for Los Angeles Times, The Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, and Billboard (for articles before 2009). In regards, to The New York Times, Template:Cite news says the publisher parameter is for the company that publishes the article and to omit the publisher if it is nearly the same as the work, so I removed the publisher for the NY Times. For the sample, I included that the song contains string arrangements on the description as it is mentioned in the article that the recording contains them. The picture is there to show what the singer looks like because the album cover has the artist in a silhouette. I also changed the caption in the picture to fit the description of the section more accurately. Erick (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. One thing I should note though is that references should be consistent with using publishers (or lack thereof) per FA criterion 2c, consistently formatted inline citations. The sample's description is better, but it should include genres and elements as well. I don't see the need for including "the album's second single" in its description. See the sample descriptions in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for good examples. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added the publisher for the NY Times and expanded the description of "No Sé Tú" based on the article you provided by adding a quote from Vibe magazine. Erick (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now meets FA criteria. Good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and support. Erick (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 *'''Support''' now meets FA criteria. Good work! [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#454545">edits]])</b> 20:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 : Thank you very much for your review and support. [[User:Magiciandude|Erick]] ([[User talk:Magiciandude|talk]]) 20:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
+{{FACClosed|promoted}} [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)