---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Nominator: Magiciandude (talk · contribs) 21:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reserving this review. I'll try to post a review tomorrow. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated: 18:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) by Jaguarnik

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

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)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

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

Overall:

The biggest issue is how short this article is. There is no length requirement for GA articles, but this article feels far too short, especially for an article about an album by Luis Miguel - it feels as if there's significant content missing. There's no analysis of the composition of the songs - just that certain disc jockeys remixed them. Compared to other articles about remix albums - for example Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix or J to tha L–O! The Remixes - this article just doesn't say enough about the album.

There are also a few other issues that need to be addressed.

Most of the sources look fine, however, there are a few issues.

• Luis Miguel's own site cannot be used as a reliable source for the success of the album. That must be removed.
• The AllMusic review archive link leads to an error - that needs to be fixed. The archive link for 12 November 2022, for example, doesn't lead to an error.
• The Hung Medien source for the Mexican charts also leads to an error. Additionally, it also seems to be for Cómplices, not for No Culpes a la Noche.
• There's also a minor misquotation of the La Tercera article: the spokesman does not say "that it would be a purely 'anterior' material" - that bit can be removed.

• I did a brief copyedit of spelling and grammar; I see no more issues in that area. I don't understand what "for shipping over 90,000 copies" is supposed to mean - does that mean the album got the platinum record for 90 thousand copies sold?
• Music critics and disc jockeys do not need a wikilink. That can be removed.
• Replace "noted" with a more neutral word per MOS:SAID.
• In my opinion, there are too many quotations. Some of these can be paraphrased - for example, Tommy Calle's review can be paraphrased as "criticized the similarity to previous albums"; "as "not the best one"" can also be cut out.

For these reasons, I don't believe this article passes the criteria at the moment. I am a new reviewer, so another reviewer will check this review for me. Good luck on future nominations. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this is 670 words myself and would have suggested a return to the well with more information, particularly on the production of this album. I'd encourage nominator @Magiciandude to see if there is more information on the production side that could lead to an article more comparable to other GAs of music albums.

A few comments in my cross-check:

• @Jaguarnik, your platinum/gold comment is correct. The PDF link provides the requirements (which do vary by year). When this disc was released, the requirements were Gold 30,000, Platinum 60,000, Diamond 300,000. It was certified Platinum and Gold.
• I agree on maybe reducing some of the quotation volume.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]