Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romances/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:03, 27 July 2011 [1].

Romances edit

Nominator(s): DJ Magician Man (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after working on this article for months, I went through two peer reviews and had the article copy edited twice. If there is any other issue that needs to be addressed, please let me know and I will fix as promply as possible. DJ Magician Man (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all web citations include retrieval dates. However, convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books) don't require retrieval dates
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
How many pages in the CD liner notes
Is Billboard published by Prometheus or Nielsen?
Can you cite the original source of this material?
Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
In general, make sure your reference format is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Okay, I've added retrieval dates on the certification official websites. Do you want me to remove the retrieval dates with the sources from Google Books?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The liner notes does not have page numbers.
The physical magazines are published by Nielsen whereas the online database is published by Prometheus.
I've added the original source from the Billboard magazine itself.
~~Didn't find any double periods.~~ Yeah I did found one on the article, not when editing it. I removed it anyway.

DJ Magician Man (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There are short, choppy sentences at the start of the background section
"The two albums also became successful in countries outside of Latin America" The US is outside of Latin America
"He also expressed an interest in singing in Italian and Portuguese,[8] although the album's songs are all in Spanish." I don't really understand this
"Tercer Romance ("Third Romance")" You didn't provide translations for the other titles
The third para of "background" doesn't really seem to belong there, at least without some more introduction; also, you don't mention the final title, and the para is not so well sourced
"York City to commemorate the" "commemorate" implies it was years later

Sorry, I'll finish reading through when I get a chance- gotta rush off now. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting up again-

"for two-and-a-half hours" 79 concerts totalling 2.5 hours?
"wrote a more optimisitc review" optimistic is the wrong word
Why was Ernesto Lecnher critical?

Generally looking pretty good- I imagine I will be willing to support this article at some point soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback J Milburn, I'm not finished with the issues but here's what I've done so far:

I'm still working on the start of background section. EDIT: I expanded some sentences by merging two sentences to together, but I might need help here if there are other issues that need to addressed with it.
I've included that the success of both albums was outside of the US as well.
When Miguel announced a third Romance album, he said he would also sing in Italian and Portuguese, but the final work is all in Spanish. Why it's only in Spanish is what I couldn't find.
I've provided the translations that I missed.
I'm split on whether I should make the third paragraph it's own section or merge it with the recording and production. I've also added references using the Allmusic source.
I replaced "to commemorate the" with "for the" album.
I added that it was 2.5 hours for each show.
I wrote that he had a positive reaction to the show.
I cannot find the original review that Lechner wrote for the album. All I found was Morales's response to his review, and with the help with another editor, neither of could find it. See the discussion page of the article.

Erick (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above comments; this seems premature, GAN would be a better route for this article first. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'll have this FAC withdrawn. Thank you for those who made an input to the comments. Erick (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.