Talk:Dreaming of You (Selena album)/GA4
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why does the article use British date formatting when it's about an American subject?
- It's difficult to verify the accuracy of what's been written when some sentences don't have citations at the end of them.
- Info box
- Way too many genres. I don't see how an album can be five genres. An album is always one genre which may have influences other songs in some of the songs. The parameter is Genre, not Genre(s). I'd say Latin pop is the only one that probably encompasses the whole album melodically. It's clearly not an R&B album, but probably has some R&B or R&B-infleunce songs with elements of it, for example.
- Lead
- is the fifth and final → Shouldn't it be 'was' as she's not alive?
- Well if I use the past-tense tone, it would imply that there was another release that was considered her fifth and final and not Dreaming of You. For example, Dreaming of You was the fifth and final album. jona(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- But 'is' implies that it is currently so. — Calvin999 09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Link studio album
- American Tejano → I don't think 'tejano' is needed
- artist → Implies she is a painter or something. Use singer or recording artist
- The lead is not structured correctly and it does not follow the order of the rest of the article. You open it with talking about it's commercial and critical success before the background, production etc. The whole lead section needs to be re-ordered. At the moment, it's a pretty big fail.
- I understand, but the article was modeled by the FA album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. This article was suggested by Snuggums for Erick's FA article this past year. I found it be unique and different than other album articles and is the reason why I decided that it would be a great model for Dreaming of You since it has failed miserably many times. Erick asked me to give this article another try earlier this year and is why I took the suggestion to use the Beatles album. Best, jona(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand why a non-chronological lead was used for an FA. But with respect, we aren't discussing that article here. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore it's chronological order should be reflected in the lead too. — Calvin999
- According to WP:LEAD, the lead does not need to be in chronological order but be written in a cohesive matter that establishes the subject's notability (especially in the first few sentences) which I did. If other editors want to continue using their way of writing album articles then that's cool, this is how I wrote the article (with a FA model in mind) while also abiding to WP:LEAD. Here is what WP:LEAD saids:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
- Best, jona(talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be, but I don't know why you wouldn't make it conchological? It just doesn't make sense reading it how you've structured it. That would be a flaw pointed out at FAC. Also, the following is not needed or relevant to this article: — Calvin999 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
"After signing a recording contract with EMI Latin in 1989, the label denied Selena a requested crossover after she made three demonstration recordings. After her Grammy Award nomination for Live (1993) was announced, Selena signed with SBK Records to begin recording her crossover album, which was front-page news in Billboard magazine. In March 1994, she released Amor Prohibido; in interviews she said her English-language album was still being developed." - This can be removed. — Calvin999 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The album was released posthumously, but you don't say this. This is an important fact. As it stands, it reads as though it was her fifth and final album she release before she died, which isn't the case.
- There shouldn't be citations in the lead. Everything should be sourced and cited in the main body.
- The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the album 35× platinum → This is latin certifications, right? As 35x platinum in US certifying would be 35 million, not 3.5 million.
- Background
I'd say only the fourth paragraph, and at a push the third too, are relevant. This was her fifth album of her career, so I don't see how the first two paragraphs are relevant. That's for her bio and I would say her first and second album backgrounds.
- It had been suggested by Ruhrfisch to include a little about Selena since she is not a well known singer outside of the Americas. He suggested this for every PR request for her articles that I worked on. If you still think the information is excessive, I wouldn't mind trimming. jona(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's not really the point though. Background should only be included pertaining to this album. I.E. what inspired it etc. Not information that pre-dates the first album years and years before. — Calvin999 09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Music and lyrics
- Move the audio files to the left because the picture in the section above is interfering with it.
- Release and commercial performance
- Don't mix the release info with commercial performance. Release info, it's various formats and the different countries/dates it was released in should be its own paragraph.
- Why does Outside the U.S. use a level three header and not a level two header?
- Chart and sales performance → Redundant title. Remove it.
- Cultural impact → Make this it's own section.
- Singles
- Should go after Composition and recording but before Release.
- Critical reception
- This should go before Commercial performance
- Charts
- Tables are supposed to say US, not U.S.
- They should all be separate and not joined up too, as it interferes with the WP:ACCESS
- Singles charts
- Bit of a pointless section.
- References
- 163, 164 and 165 have red link date issues.
- I'm sorry to do this to you, but every date in every reference needs to be changed from British to American date formatting. You've used 24 October 2015, whereas it should be October 24, 2015.
- Status
I can't fault the quality of language, grammar and writing. Bafflegab has done a great job as always. But there are some major structure issues which need sorting before I can pass this. On hold for 7 days. But you should be able to rectify these quite quickly. It just a case of moving things about, not removing or adding. — Calvin999 22:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing, I have fixed all issues you have raised concerns over. Best, jona(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've made responses. — Calvin999 09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Are you still going to finish the review or can you ask for a second opinion? Thanks, jona(talk) 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the original reviewer has abandoned this review. I am passing this article as GA, since apart from something which is not part of the GA criteria, all concerns have been addressed. sst✈ 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)