Talk:Dame (Luis Miguel song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dame (Luis Miguel song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC) and I will reviews this article soon (hopefully).

Infobox

• I see a release date, but not place in the correct section of the boyd of the article.
• The same goes for recording date.
• If is a promo single then the infobox is different. Change "Promotional single" in the label "type" and remove "promo single". I'm starting to see sources claiming its an official single, which one?
• Format? Digital Download, CD single, streaming?
• Cover needs alt.

Lead

• The lead is terrible.
• first two sentences → "Dame" (English: "Give Me") is a song by Mexican recording artist Luis Miguel recorded at the Record Plant studio in Los Angeles, California, from his eleventh studio album Nada Es Igual... It was written by Alejandro Lerner and Ignacio "Kiko" Cibrian, its production was handled by the latter along with Miguel. It was released to radio stations as the lead single from the album on 15 July 1996. It incorporates R&B and hip-hop influences.
• Video of the Year → needs ceremony, year.
• "It received mixed reactions from music critics who felt that the track sounded too similar to his previous pop recordings." → please elaborate
• Needs at least two paragraphs once it has more information

Recording and composition

• the sample should be in the other side of the page.
• So this section only has three lines? You need serious expasion, who mixed the song, mastered, engineers...and so on?
• You have some reviews, use them to expand the composition section. Find more information.
• Kiko Cibrian → Ignacio "Kiko" Cibrian
• co-produced by Cibrian → co-produced by the latter.
• "Dame" is an uptempo, "R&B-lite" song → The song is an "R&B-lite" uptempo track...
• "R&B-lite" → what do you mean?
• "lead single from the album" → is it a promotional single? Quite confusing, because the sources also cited it as an official single.

Music video

• Why is the image of main importance in here?
• Marcus Nispel → Marcus Nispel, who has also directed "Runway" by Janet Jackson (link both)
• Filming took place on 29 and 30 June in the Mojave Desert → where is the desert located? and year of the filming?
• in a black suit, → in a black suit;
• 375 kilos of dynamite were used in the scenes with explosions. → During the previous scenes 375 kilos of dynamite were used
• This makes no sense whatsoever → "did want to leave this experience behind", if so he wanted a double, which is not the case. Perhaps "didn't want..."
• You also have the hours that took to film it. Please add it.
• The Chicago tribune source has much more to offer, please take a a second look.

Critical reaction

• Critical reaction → Critical reception
• This should start "Dame received mixed/rave/good/bad/terrible...and so on...reviews from music critics"
• I can't acess two reviews, but it says "Fernando Gonzalez of the Contra Costa Times called "Dame" a "Janet Jackson"-lite funk". So the dong should also be funk? or funk influenced?
• Try two find two links that don't require subscription, perhaps on archive.web, archive.is or webarchive.
• "Dame" was recognized at the 1998 BMI Latin Awards as one of the best performing songs of the year. → should be in a different paragraph
• "Dame" and its music video was included on Miguel's compilation album Grandes Éxitos (2005). → wrong section
• It was included on the set list for his Tour America 1996, Romances Tour, and Amarte Es Un Placer Tour. → wrong section, once again, also it should be in the lead
• The tours should have the years they run between brackets.
• The latter tour is missing a source.
• While there's no denying the catchiness of his radio-ready, R&B-lite fare – "Si Te Vas", "Dame", "Todo Por Su Amor" – there are no distinguishing licks to separate these songs from past hits such as "Suave", Sera Que No Me Amas" and "Oro de Ley" → Use tour own words along with parts of the quote
• "among the best tracks on the album" → use your own words

Commercial performance

• "Dame" was commercially released on 15 July 1996 → wrong section, should be in release section.
• Billboard Hot Latin Songs → Billboard Hot Latin Songs
• Add one of the "Year-end charts" performance.
• Expand using some peaks and re-peaks of the single, in other words, its trajectory.

Track listing

• Use {{spaced ndash}} between the song and its length, remove the parenthesis in the time.

Charts

• Fine.

See also

• Fine.

References

• Be consistent. You use work and publisher for AllMusic reference; however with Chicago Tribune you only use work. Either you have both or remove all the publishers.

Overall GA review

• If I were you I would archive all the links.
• "Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria." → very important!

Please hold any comments and issues until I end the review. Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• After careful reading and seeing what the article is lacking. I can't pass it even with amends I recommended, its just nowhere near there. It needs to be more developed (information lacking in most sections or its too short). Not only that but its rated as stub, so it can't be GA material, shouldn't even be nominated in first place. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I rated it a stub because that's what it was before I expanded the article. Someone else has to reassess the article, it's definitely not a stub. I'm only limited to the information I can access. Erick (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I'm quite aware of that. Some articles just can't be GA, its not your fault or anyone else. Even if the stub wasn't the issue "Broad in its coverage" is the a problem, on the other hand. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: "Some articles just can't be GA, its not your fault or anyone else." That's not true. I've written plenty of articles about songs that got even less coverage and they still passed GA. Broad in its coverage is based on not only how much information is available, but how much attention it got by reviewers. Edit: Here's what the "broad in coverage" says: " The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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." Erick (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: No you haven't. I have seen your GA's and that's not true, they have lots/tons of coverage. I believe you can find more formation about the song, look at the album reviews they usually talk about the singles. Btw, a tip here: next time, put it at least to start class. You know for a fact that stubs can't be GA's. But please reassess the article, I have no problems with that whatsoever. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I did look at the album reviews. I also searched through online newspaper archives as well. That's why I said I'm limited to whatever I can access. I'm sorry, but I did not find your review to be very helpful, so I'm re-nominating it so that someone else can take a look. Erick (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Its quite helpful I gave you some strong points to work on, you are just but hurt. I thought you were going to reassess it, you would get a response sooner and if you believed I made a mistake. Good luck then! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Regardless of what I think, I do appreciate you taking your time to review this article. That said, calling someone "but hurt" is not a professional thing to say no matter how the nominator may react. Until next time, Erick (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dame (Luis Miguel song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This can be passed to GA status. The review follows. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well-written

The article is well-written.

• The use of "15 July 1996" seems unusual for encyclopedic prose but is acceptable per MOS:DATEVAR so that's okay.
• The second-to-last sentence under "music video" places a period inside quotation marks, which is different than the use throughout the rest of the article, however, from looking at the original quote it appears it is accurately quoting the full stop from the source.
• The lede complies with WP:LEDE and represents an accurate summary of the main points of the article.
• no other grammar, spelling, or structural problems observed; article is clear and layout is acceptable
• There were some other issues noted in the previous GA-review which have been addressed.

Verifiable / no original research

The article is verifiable, with no evidence of original research or plagiarism.

• Plagiarism: Earwig indicates "violation unlikely"
• Sourcing: Every sentence is supported by one or more inline citations. All sources are RS or limited RS for purposes of music topics.
• No claims are made that are unsupported by sources, or sourced exclusively to primary sources. No evidence of WP:OR.
• The method of sourcing has some variation which will probably need to be standardized if the article were to receive an A-class or FA review.

Broad in coverage

The article is broad in coverage while remaining focused on the topic and addressing all reasonable aspects expected of a song article. A cursory search I conducted for other significant information on this topic turned-up empty-handed.

Neutral

The article presents a NPOV.

Stable

meets criteria

• There are no outstanding content disagreements on the Talk page.
• Virtually all edits in the last two months have been by the nominator or bots.

Images

meets criteria

• There are two images and one media file, all of which are correctly licensed, or meet the requirements for non-free media.