Talk:No Quiero Na' Regala'o

No Quiero Na' Regala'o has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 3, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Latin music: Tropical music Low‑importance

	Latin music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Tropical music task force.

Puerto Rico Low‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:No Quiero Na' Regala'o/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Magiciandude: I've finished up my GA review. Overall we're in good shape but there's one major prose/structure issue to address before I pass the article. Take a look and let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review @Ganesha811:, I've restructured the article so that El Gran Combo's version is written first and then Santa Rosa's version. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me! I've made some prose tweaks and I think this is now at the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few minor grammar and phrasing things, which I can fix myself, but I do have a bigger prose question. Given that the song was first written and released in 1971, why does this article use the cover from 1996 as the main subject? The first sentence, the lead, the body of the article - all focus on the cover primarily. I understand if the cover was a bigger hit, but I think that the original version should still be mentioned first, before mentioning cover versions. I believe that's typical for songs for which the cover version became a big hit - see Make You Feel My Love, for instance. The Adele version is the most famous, and takes up the majority of text in the article, but Dylan is mentioned first, including in the first sentence. Let me know if this makes sense. I don't think it would be too hard to reshuffle the article content to reflect this. Issue addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are fine. The only iffy one is Allmusic, but according to our guidelines on it we're fine. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found by Earwig or spot check against sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, no issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues with neutrality, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use image should be ok.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic