Talk:Nada Es Igual (Luis Miguel album)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll be review this article soon. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• Missing alt.

Added (alts aren't required for GAs though).

• No way this is the length of the album 41:22, even a source says its around 47 minutes. Add the length of each track.

It is actually. I used my Windows Media Player to play the album and it shows that its 41 minutes. That Clarín article is wrong about the length and the duration is from Allmusic anyway.

It actually shorter when added the length of each track. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well either way, an album's duration and track lengths should be backed up by a source either by its booklet or something like Allmusic. I don't want to veer into original research territory, it makes me uncomfortable.

Erick (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

True MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The body of the article needs a reference for the release date 20 August 1996.

Added

• You forgot pop here in the genres.

Added

 Done

Lead

• WEA Latina on 20 August 1996. → I need a source for this just like I mentioned previously

Added

• compositions → this means writing + producing, you already stated producing before.

Changed to songwriting since Alejandro Lerner was not a producer for the album

• criticized by music critics → sounds redundant, "scrutinize by music critics", for example
• Fixed
• although one reviewer gave the album a positive review. → remove, unnecessary

Removed.

• respectively. → ,respectively.
• in the United States while → in the United States, while

 Done

Background

• You are missig a refernece for Romance, and you could also add something about its the compostion and themes like you did for Second Romance.

What reference are you looking for specifically? I also don't agree with you on the latter part. The article is already wikilinked so reader's who want to know more about can simply read it there.

"In 1994 Miguel released his tenth studio album, Segundo Romance. It is the follow-up to his 1991 album Romance which contains a collection of classic boleros and Latin American standards" → the only link you have here is for second romance, however you talk about Romance like it had a link

The Allmusic review in the review mentions that it is a follow-up Romance.

• received platinum → received a platinum

Fixed

• Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

Fixed

• lead single "Dame" was revealed on 12 July 1996. → missing source

The article that the source came from was written on July 12.

• and recorded at the Record Plant in Los Angeles, California → not on given source

Reused Clarín source

I'm sorry, I meant Manuel Alejandro and Rudy Pérez → same as previous

They're mentioned on FN 11: "...entre los que se encuentra Kiko Cibrian, Manuel Alejandro y Rudy Pérez".

See above.

• "Romance and Segundo Romance received a platinum certification by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the United States. " → needs source

Added.

 Done

Composition

• is "basically a continuation of the singer's favorite turf - a mix of mid-tempo, jazzy, brassy, Al Jarreau-like pop songs and ... woman-melting ballads → use your own words

I toned it down with the quoting.

 Done I also added some stuff that was missing.

Singles and promotion

• It peaked at number two on the Hot Latin Songs chart and reached number one on the Latin Pop Songs chart, becoming his fifth number one song on the latter → not supported by source.

Readers who want to verify it should be able to see the chart history easily by clicking on the desired chart. The url is setup to encompass all of Luis Miguel's chart history on Billboard.

• Obejas commented on the video: "There's Luis Miguel, unshaven, looking haggard, wearing a suit in the middle of the Mojave. He's not all that toned, he's just a guy: An hombre, not a muchacho anymore. → remove this is not necessary as has nothing to do with this section.

Removed

• "Cómo Es Posible Que a Mi Lado" was released as the second single from the album with an accompanying music video → was released in 1996 and add a source.

Added that it was released in 1996. Said info is already in the source as the article was talking about the year in music in 1996.

• It peaked at number ten and number six on the Hot Latin Songs and Latin Pop Songs charts respectively → same as the first point.

See first point.

• The album's third single, "Que Tú Te Vas" → The album's third single, "Que Tú Te Vas" was released in the same year

Added

• Hot Latin Songs chart while "Todo Por Su Amor"... → Hot Latin Songs chart. In 1997, "Todo Por Su Amor"...

You skipped this one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• was released as a promotional single in Europe → you only provide a source for Germany, I need more since it could only been made available as a promo to that country.

That's where the promo CD was manufactured, not released. Since it doesn't mention where it was released specifically I have it removed.

• boleros → English please.

No, this is correct. See articles such as this, this, and this. They have it as boleros.

Critical reception and accolades

• Upon its release Nada Es Igual... met with mixed reactions from music critics. → Upon its release Nada Es Igual... was met with negative reactions from music critics. + link music critics

Changed to mixed reviews because the ratings show that most music critics found the album to be mediocre (alternatively, "unfavorable" would also work). Linked music critics

• and called the album's ballads "requisite" → and was expecting the "requisite ballads", similar to his last studio albums.

Fixed

• "weakest set ever" , "uneven batch of too-familiar romantic confessionals and flaccid, uptempo R&B/pop entries" → use your own words, more often.

It's a one paragraph review, but I've toned it down to the best I can.

• "trademark mix of power ballads and R&B-lite." → same as previous

Toned it down.

• Gonzalez complimented → He complimented

Fixed

• calling "Dame" a "Janet Jackson-lite funk". → sounds a bit out of place, perhaps "Gonzalez found Dame to be a "Janet Jackson-lite funk", departing from the rest of the album"?

I'm going to quote the review: " Instead he offers more cotton candy (Abrazame, the title track), R&B-lite (Que Tu Te Vas , Si Te Vas ) and Janet Jackson-lite funk (Dame)". Any suggestions?

• of the article → of the record?

Fixed

• "hasn't strayed from the hit-making formula that clicked with 1990's 20 Años. Although Tarradell praised Miguel's production as "superbly crafted", he criticized the record's music for being "totally unadventurous" and called the ballads "complete throwaways. → serious rephrasing, use your own words.

Toned it down

• giving the record four of five stars, → who gave the record four of five stars,

Fixed

• "polished" → remove

It's part of the sentence from the review so it' s been rearranged.

• Free Library doesn't seem reliable to me.

It's an online archive just like Highbeam Research (except it's free). The reliability of the source is dependent on what exactly is sourced. In this case, the article is coming from Univision itself which hosts the Lo Nuestro Awards.

• Change some of the "album" → "record, avoids repetition.

Done to the best I could

 Done. I just change some stuff.

Commercial performance

• Unlink gold.

I don't agree with you here. I don't assume all readers understand what a recording certification is, which is it's linked. It's something I've on pretty much article I've worked on.

I just thik its quite uncesseary, but I see where you coming from.

• RIAA → Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), link the first

It's already abbreviated and linked in the background section.

• CAPIF → Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers (CAPIF), link the first

Fixed

 Done

Track listing

• I would add "All tracks produced by Luis Miguel and Kiko Cibrian".

Added

 Done

Personnel

• Link coordinator please.

I'm not sure what to link to exactly. There isn't an article about music coordinating from what I can see. For now, I've linked it to music director.

• Link WEA Latina properly.

Fixed

 Done

Weekly charts

• Page 57 is not available to see.

I fixed the url, it should work now.

Year-end charts

• The page for 1996 YEC US Latin Pop Albums should be 66 instead of 63.

Fixed

• The page for the 1997 US Latin Pop Albums should be 59 instead of 57.

Fixed.

 Done

Certifications

• Should have Chile as the country. The album is Diamond at least according to the List of music recording certifications#Albums. Do you beg differ?

I do and that's because the threshold for certifications was higher in the '90s than it is now (which is what you are basing it on). Even the article from Billboard supports this (a platinum album was 25,000 copies back then). I used a calculator and it shows that it would be 5x platinum. Since the article doesn't mention it being certified, I can't add it because that would violate WP:SYNTHESIS.

Doesn't Chile have an organization like the RIAA? IFPI Chile, from what I have seen. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It does, but there's no database available for it online sadly. 04:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :( EDIT: I know you didn't bring this up, but AMPROFON's database only dates back to 1999. Any certifications before then has to be verified by a source and despite my best efforts, I couldn't find any such sources. Double bummer. :(

Better if you change that to the Commercial performance section since there is no certification or even database too look up for it. If eventually you find another link with a certification, you can add here. What do you think? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've moved it to the prose.

 Done

See also

• Fine.

References

• First time I say this, flawless. Congrats! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall GA review

• First of all, the article is in a fantastic condition.

Hi, MarioSoulTruthFan. Thanks for taking your time for reviewing this article. Just a question. The last time you reviewed an article by me, you didn't want to me fix the article even though your review was still a WIP. I'm just curious why. From my POV, wouldn't it be easier to get things done instead of just waiting? Erick (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You welcome. Simple, every now and then I might make a commentary regarding something and latter I found out the thing I want you to say is in other place instead of being missed. I don't do the usual review from top to the end, usually its the other way around or choose some random section. Just wait, either tomorrow or Monday I will be finished. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This will tame me more time than what I was expecting, I'm sorry. I will get back here as soon as possible. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Quick question. Do you think the WikIProject R&B and Soul Music banner should be placed on the article talk page? Erick (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: you can now start. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I've addressed the issues you brought up. Please take a look at the article. Erick (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I added some things that I missed on the first look, plus I made minor changes see if you are ok with them or even if you can improve them. I will try to wrap up this review as soon as possible. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Erick (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: one amendment to do and its good to go. I left my name n front of it for easier localization. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Fixed it. Thanks for heads up. Erick (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

REFS

• Three million copies worldwide claimed

Franlm14 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Album claimed sales

I think the claimed sales (1.3 million) are a bit low for this album, what do you guys think @Apoxyomenus: @Magiciandude:. I could only find 3 realistic sources: 2 from Brazil (3 million claimed) and one from Reforma (2 million). Franlm14 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, for me the claim of 3 million is realistic. The album already has 2 million available sales/certifications, and all of those sales came from 1996-1999. 1.3 million is outdated and the gap of 1 million if we use the 3 million claim, fits with album's tenier among other things. That gap is less than other contemporary Spanish-language releases such as Pies Descalzos or Dónde Están los Ladrones?. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think "Aries" is outdated too, without US numbers and all latin american countries, but I couldn't any realistic source, anyway. Thanks for your help!!!Franlm14 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Anything larger than 2 million with Aries and below 3.5M (3M fits fine) should be replaced. A great part of his releases in the decade, were among the best-selling or over the average in many of Latin markets as I noticed. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense thanks you. But it's impossible find something below 5 million, the inflated sales based on spanish Wikipedia it's all over the place, these numbers were there many years without being reverted, and with no references at all, what a shame.