Talk:Real (Ivy Queen album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JayJay (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review the article shortly JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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.	Good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problems
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.	Good
	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).	Here is where I run into problems. For reference 11 instead of doing all stuff just press Advanced, select Artist name type in "Ivy Queen" then click search ALOT easier, same for reference 4 even though not necessary. Reference 15 and 16 are the same, delete ref 15. References 20, 24, 31, 32 and 33 are dead so please fix those. Been clarified.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Obviously no problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	If you could add more to "Release and promotion" and "Titling and artwork" that would be great but not neccesary
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	If you could add more reviews that would make it more neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	If you could make the two pictures in "Recording and production" a little bit bigger that would be great.
	7. Overall assessment.

Okay, that is how Certification references are suppose to be referenced. 15 and 16 are not the same, 15 is the search engine result, while 16 is the actual link to the review which requires a subscription. References 14, 18, 24, 25, and 26 are subscription needed and were like that before they were dead so it doesn't matter. (According to Hahc21) Also, I have not been able to find any reviews :( If I could, trust me I would include them. I've made the images bigger :) Thanks for the review. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I ment references 20, 24, 31, 32, 33 but let me see if I can fix them. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you don't need those refereneces at all just get rid of them. In the charts section replace refs, 31, 32, 33 with 17,18,19. Also have you tried Template:BillboardID function JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This still shouldn't even matter since they are subscription needed. They support chart positions of some albums and singles. The new Billboard doesn't show all of the chart positions, one would be for Diva, where the Tropical Albums position is not provided so I had to use the older ones. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the new layout is really making me mad. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The new layout of Billboard? It's that it's missing chart positions for some of Queen's albums such as the "Tropical Albums" and "Reggae Albums". Is this passed or failed? I addressed the pictures, no other reviews have been found (Keep in mind this is a Spanish language reggaeton album, Latin albums don't get a lot of attention, and it's of a genre which was just becoming popular in 2004), the references are used to support chart positions that are missing. I'll see if I can find anything else to expand those two sections you mentioned, though I doubt it, I've looked at every single page listed in Google News Archive with the search "Ivy Queen" "Real" which came up 10 pages of sources which I have looked though. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I ment the Billboard layout, anyways everything else is fine so I guess I will go ahead and pass this, hopefully the Billboard thing can all get settled. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we'll yes it is very frustrating. Hopefully it will. Thanks for the review and your time. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)