Talk:Romance (Luis Miguel album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Review on article

Hello @Magiciandude: (Erick), I said I was going to review this article and I am. Sorry it has taken this long to do so. I read the comments on the FAC so I can get a better understanding on why the article failed and to see if any changes that you made since then has satisfied the comments left by Eddie since he was the only one who opposed the article's promotion.

In the lead "Miguel promoted the album with a tour of the United States and Latin America", I suggest revising this sentence similar to your previous FA feat Formula, Vol. 1. There are too many instances of "album" and "song" throughout the article, which Eddie brought up in his FAC review. A revision for this sentence "The original plans were, as usual, for Calderón to compose new material made up of pop songs and ballads as well as find songs for Miguel to cover in Spanish." needs to be tell the reader(s) that Calderon was Miguel's principal composer without it being WP:EDITORIAL, I am also not feeling the whole sentence in general which is why I suggest you to rewrite it. Another editorial sentence (Ultimately, he was unable to compose original songs for the album) was found two sentences down. Replace "the" between "of" and "project" to avoid using the same word again in the same sentence in "over the production of project". I also did some minor editing on the article that I found while reading. The article does look better since its last FAC review, but since I found several minor errors and the consistency of using "album" and "song" again throughout the article, I believe it needs more eyes on editors who no nothing about Luis Miguel or his works to give you a better, more complete review. Though, I can see the article being a FA soon. Best and Happy New Years, .jonatalk 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review AJona1992! Right now I'm having this article go through another copy-edit at the guild. Once that's done, I will address the issues you brought up and probably request another peer review afterwards. Cheers! Erick (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992: Oh hey, perfect timing! I was just going to ask take another look as I feel I've addressed most of the issues that the FAC and you brought up. Erick (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are a few more comments: jona(talk) 14:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Background and recording
  • The three albums in the first sentence of this section states that they sold 3 million copies each? or accumulative?

 accumulative

  • There's an overuse of the word "songs" in this section

 I thought I already did this, but this is probably where I got the edit conflict and forgot about it

Singles and promotion
  • The use of parentheses for the sold out claim and the new track are not necessary, though I know that Miniapolis incorporated them, but these two are distracting to me as I read the article. You can say that he performed at a sold out 10,000-seat National Auditorium in Mexico City and end the sentence there. The new track is not as distracting as the sold out sentence, but it did caught my eye and I had to re-read the entire paragraph to see if it was bothersome.

 for the first parenthesis, I think the second one is fine since it's just saying what the new song is

Critical reception
The template isn't actually required. As of late, I only use the template if there are at least three reviews with a rating system and the article only has two of them.
  • The parentheses is distracting (the losing to Jon Secada part)
 Done
Commercial performance
  • I'm not fond with the use parentheses; though other readers may find it helpful, up to you on this one.

 I only removed the parenthesis from the info about the album being displaced. I kept the parenthesis with the acronyms for obvious reasons, but I don't know what to do with the one that says the album was later certified platinum

Legacy
  • Looks good
Thanks!

Thanks again for the review AJona1992! I'm feeling confident in renominating the article for FAC. I have a quick question about the awards even though you didn't bring it up. "Premio Eres" was an award ceremony by Eres magazine which was a popular Mexican magazine. If it should be mentioned that Eres was a magazine, then how would you suggest rewriting it? Erick (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest another peer review before submitting the article so someone who isn't familiar with the topic (Luis Miguel, Latin music, music-related articles in general) can provide a more thorough review, if you don't wanna wait another month before it gets a review, maybe asking User:Nikkimaria for her input (she did one for Selena (album) after I asked for one, she gave a very basic but informative review on the article in 9 hours). I never heard of it so I assumed good faith that the writing style you used was appropriate, you wrote the magazine in italics which is a mossy thing to do. What are the awards called? Premios Eres? If so, maybe something along the lines as: At the 1993 annual Premios Eres, Miguel won three awards: Best Album, Best Male Singer and Best Show (for his tour). You don't want to add (for Romance), its commonsense you do mean this album since you added the content here anyways. If the awards is not called Premios Eres, maybe something along the lines as: At the 1993 Eres magazine awards, Miguel won three prestigious categories: Best Album, Best Male Singer and Best Show (for his tour). Best, jona(talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I did what you suggested with the former since it was called Premios Eres (I think they stopped the awards a long time ago. Heck I don't even know if Eres magazine still exists). Yeah I don't think I have the patience to wait another month so I'll take your suggestion about asking Nikkimaria. Erick (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully her review will help the article take a closer step to FA =) Ping me when it makes it to FAC. Best, jona(talk) 17:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! =D Erick (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@AJona1992: Alright so I did the PR and addressed everything Nikkimaria brought up. Any last minute fixings that might need to be done before I resubmit this to FAC? Erick (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In the singles and promotion section, there is a missing period in the sample box. In the critical reception, there's a coma missing before FN#49. These are all that I could fine, I was going to bring up the issue on wikilinking best-selling albums of Mexico and Argentina but saw that you did so in the see also section, which is fine. Best, jona(talk) 13:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Done and done. If there's nothing else, I'll renominate the article soon. Thanks for the input AJona! Erick (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That was it, go ahead and nominate it for FA. Best, jona(talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Done and done! =) Erick (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Miguel"

Why is his named treated as if it was a last name ("Miguel, Luis"). For example, "Miguel had a contractual deadline with his label", "Miguel and Manzanero produced the album", "praising Miguel's vocals". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I looked up WP:SURNAME and here's what I found: "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." Erick (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romance (Luis Miguel album). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Argentina sales

According to the latest source of sales in Argentina, we can say that it is the best-selling album in the history of Argentina?, at least until 1999. We should change "and the bestselling record in Argentina by a non-native artist" to "bestselling record in Argentina of all time". In October 1999, the diamond award were revealed with sales:

1) Luis Miguel Romance 1.041.730

2) Luis Miguel Segundo Romance 813.082

3) Luis Miguel Aries 693.162

4) Julio Iglesias El Amor 678.285

5) Luis Miguel Romances 676.136

6) Julio Iglesias Emociones 636.294

7) Soledad Poncho Al Viento 620.510

8) Fito Paez El Amor Despues Del Amor 614.869

9) Michael Jackson Thriller 576.779

10) Julio Sosa Album De Oro 551.890

11) Queen Greatest Hits Vol. II 506.916

Greetings. Franlm14 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romance_(Luis_Miguel_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1159138564"