Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romance (Luis Miguel album)/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Romance (Luis Miguel album)[edit]
In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. When Romances was suggested to me to appear as TFA on Valentine's Day (it didn't), that's when I decided I would work on this article hoping to get it TFA on Valentine's Day next year. I never thought I would be able to pull it off until I had some Mexican newspaper archives which helped me a lot on finding how this album came to be.
Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site. Erick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query about news archival moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Based on content and prose. EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This simply isn't ready.
On content:
- There are major things missing, not the least of which is anything at all about the music itself. More than a dozen musicians are listed... what did they do? Strings on every track (although only a viola player is listed)? Tempo always the same? Any instrumental bits? Any indication, other than "romantic lyrics", of what the songs are about? Also, what sort of songs did he usually perform?
- I have already indicated what the musicians were credited for on the personnel section, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say about them. The only information found about the music besides being boleros are that the arrangements are accompanied by a string orchestra. Boleros are just love songs with "poetic lyrics" (which I just added into the article based on the same source I used). The article gives an overview of what all the songs have in common (being romantic love songs and poetic lyrics), information about the song themselves belong on their respective articles (see Inolvidable (song)) as this album is just a collection of songs as opposed to an album with new compositions. I included what Miguel usually performed by including what kind of music J.C. Calderon produced for Miguel before.
- Only 2/12 of the songs have an article, 1 of which has info on the LM version. It's not so much info on the songs themselves (although that would be useful – see below), but info on LM's version of them, that's required. Billboard indicated that the album "categorically redefined the interpretations of traditional boleros", but with no information about what had gone before, and almost no information on his versions, the reader is left to wonder about what was so amazing about them. On the musicians: did all the tracks have the same instrumentation? Any solos? All with strings? etc, etc. There is different poetry, different romance (even the lyrics to the two songs with articles here vary – one on loss, one on new love (in the English version at least) – these should not be lumped together into one class. In summary, add basic info to help someone who hasn't heard the album to get an idea of what can be heard on it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: Okay, I've expanded more on the information on boleros themselves on the parenthesis talking about it to explain how "bolero" is traditionally defined and its music origins. Otherwise, information such as bolero's decline belongs on the article about it not here. On the same source you mentioned for Billboard, Leila Cobo (as well as Mark Holston on the critical reception section) describes Bebu Silvetti's arrangements so readers can see what made Miguel's versions special. All the sources that talk about the arrangements describe the whole album being "string-laden" and if they had mentioned any differentiations between each track as far as music goes, I would have added them already but they don't. The audio sample provided on this article provides a good example of how the album generally sounds like to the readers. The credits and personnel section includes every instrument provided on each track and specifies which track has a specific instrument by a musician. Erick (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to suggest that the description of the arrangements should be put in the section describing the music... I've checked the 13 top-importance FA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and all of them have descriptions of at least some of the tracks, mostly in a dedicated section. If more than half of the Legacy section is on how the album revitalized interest in boleros, then some information on what interest there was before, and why, is needed. There's info in the article "Bolero Kings (and Queens) Sing Songs of Love" from the Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1992, p. A10 (it also describes one song and passes on useful info about LM's age at the time). (Minor things: I didn't suggest more on boleros generally; the Personnel section lists one viola for one track, so we still don't know where the strings came from.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: Those albums however have original compositions so it's important that they describe the tracks for its meaning and music. This album on the other hand only consists of covers (compared with Romances (Luis Miguel album) which is also a FA-article and I even wrote information about the original compositions on that album too). Could you please show me where you got access to that article? I looked on Google, Highbeam, and Questia and couldn't find it. From what I understand what you're trying to say about interests in bolero, I mentioned below that bolero's popularity was at its height in the 1950s until rock took over it's popularity in the 1960s. Boleros then became "uncool" with the younger crowd for a long time until this album came out. I added more information about how the youth perceived boleros before LM recorded them on the Legacy section. For the last part, I only listed whatever what was on the album's booklet and sources say it is an album full of string-laden arrangements so I'm going by what they say. On a side note, thank you for taking the time for replying my comments. Erick (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to suggest that the description of the arrangements should be put in the section describing the music... I've checked the 13 top-importance FA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and all of them have descriptions of at least some of the tracks, mostly in a dedicated section. If more than half of the Legacy section is on how the album revitalized interest in boleros, then some information on what interest there was before, and why, is needed. There's info in the article "Bolero Kings (and Queens) Sing Songs of Love" from the Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1992, p. A10 (it also describes one song and passes on useful info about LM's age at the time). (Minor things: I didn't suggest more on boleros generally; the Personnel section lists one viola for one track, so we still don't know where the strings came from.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: Okay, I've expanded more on the information on boleros themselves on the parenthesis talking about it to explain how "bolero" is traditionally defined and its music origins. Otherwise, information such as bolero's decline belongs on the article about it not here. On the same source you mentioned for Billboard, Leila Cobo (as well as Mark Holston on the critical reception section) describes Bebu Silvetti's arrangements so readers can see what made Miguel's versions special. All the sources that talk about the arrangements describe the whole album being "string-laden" and if they had mentioned any differentiations between each track as far as music goes, I would have added them already but they don't. The audio sample provided on this article provides a good example of how the album generally sounds like to the readers. The credits and personnel section includes every instrument provided on each track and specifies which track has a specific instrument by a musician. Erick (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 2/12 of the songs have an article, 1 of which has info on the LM version. It's not so much info on the songs themselves (although that would be useful – see below), but info on LM's version of them, that's required. Billboard indicated that the album "categorically redefined the interpretations of traditional boleros", but with no information about what had gone before, and almost no information on his versions, the reader is left to wonder about what was so amazing about them. On the musicians: did all the tracks have the same instrumentation? Any solos? All with strings? etc, etc. There is different poetry, different romance (even the lyrics to the two songs with articles here vary – one on loss, one on new love (in the English version at least) – these should not be lumped together into one class. In summary, add basic info to help someone who hasn't heard the album to get an idea of what can be heard on it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh:, I was able to access the article (courtesy of NQ from the Resource Request). The article does briefly mention one song ("Inolvidable") yes, but it was talking about Miguel's live performance of the song as opposed to what is heard on the album. According to an article for the Miami Herald, Miguel sung it live with a faster tempo than his original recording during the Romance Tour. One major fact I was able to get from the article is how Mary Talbot compared the bolero's renewed interest to swing jazz being revived at the time and they both were overtaken by rock music. I added this info in the legacy along with a source from the book The Rough Guide to Cuban Music by Philip Sweeney. I also put more information on what made Miguel's versions of boleros special aside from the arrangements by adding a comment from his former manager. Erick (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh:, it has been a week since your last comment. Is there anything I haven't already addressed? Erick (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I find it unlikely that an album that sold 7,000,000 copies had no reviews that genuinely described any of the individual tracks. Is there someone who has access to other sources in Spanish? The bits that I've read in English indicate that LM was young, good looking and already popular, but this doesn't come out in the background section, which is where it should be. That section's prose and contents are also not much better than before: LM considered boleros after an interview and because his manager suggested them (which? Or was there a link?); "it would be the first time Miguel serve as a producer for his album" (bad English); "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his previous tour" (repetition of 'previous'). The strings matter has not been addressed; there's a mix of roles and job titles in the Credits section (and a random selection of capital letters); the sources have spaced emdashes and an assortment of approaches to capitalization; etc. More important is that the prose is not going to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (criterion 1a) without a substantial rewrite. It's not a bad article – fine as a GA, but a lot of thought and effort on phrasing would be needed to get it to meet that criterion. EddieHugh (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: I already asked someone (off-wiki) who I know has access to Mexican magazines before I actually began working on the article and he couldn't find any reviews and the third review with with Mark Holston was the only one the Resource Exchange could find. Yes, thank you for pointing that out, I found information about his earlier albums with WEA Latina being successful in Mexico and I included info about him already being a teen idol at the time of his last album. There was a little more to his decision on recording boleros which I also added. I only go with what reliable sources say about the strings even if the album booklet doesn't list other musicians who did string instruments. I always used emdashes on my articles references (including those that got FA). Erick (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I find it unlikely that an album that sold 7,000,000 copies had no reviews that genuinely described any of the individual tracks. Is there someone who has access to other sources in Spanish? The bits that I've read in English indicate that LM was young, good looking and already popular, but this doesn't come out in the background section, which is where it should be. That section's prose and contents are also not much better than before: LM considered boleros after an interview and because his manager suggested them (which? Or was there a link?); "it would be the first time Miguel serve as a producer for his album" (bad English); "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his previous tour" (repetition of 'previous'). The strings matter has not been addressed; there's a mix of roles and job titles in the Credits section (and a random selection of capital letters); the sources have spaced emdashes and an assortment of approaches to capitalization; etc. More important is that the prose is not going to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (criterion 1a) without a substantial rewrite. It's not a bad article – fine as a GA, but a lot of thought and effort on phrasing would be needed to get it to meet that criterion. EddieHugh (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On prose (and content to some extent), taking just the Background and recording section:
- "was in the works". Too casual.
- Changed to "was in preparation". I'm considering using the word "production", but I'm unsure about the over usage of the word in the paragraph.
- "since he signed with the label". When was that?
- Specified.
- "Original plans were". Not 'The original plans were'?
- Fixed.
- "Production was scheduled to begin in April, with Italian- and English-language albums to follow". Does that mean Eng and Ita versions of the album, or completely different albums?
- Specified by using studio albums (although the source doesn't really clarify).
- "Miguel had a contractual deadline with his label to record new material". New in what sense? He recorded an album of covers.
- New in the sense having to record something. Per the source from the Sun-Sentinel: "Luis Miguel's contract with Warner had a deadline the singer could not meet if he looked for new songs."
- "a television program interviewed where they both were interviewed". First "interviewed" → "interview", but the repetition is bad anyway.
- Removed first instance of "interviewed".
- "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his 20 Años tour". When? Content: what exactly was 'wrong' with baleros anyway? Why were they unfashionable, and since when (useful for a background section)?
- According to Mark Holston on the article Ageless romance with bolero, and The Rouge Guide to Cuban Music by Philip Sweeney, boleros became unfashionable when rock and roll became the prominent genre in Latin America throughout the 1960s.
- "manager Hugo López". Manager of what?
- Changed to "his manager Hugo López"
- "hired Manzanero to take over the project". Take over in what sense?
- Fixed.
- "it would be Miguel's first self-produced album". Two sentences later, in another para, it's co-produced. Put this stuff together.
- I changed it state that it was the first time Miguel became a producer for his own album.
- "Miguel and Manzanero selected which boleros to cover for the album out of five hundred songs". This should be earlier, with the other information on song selection. Rephrasing for flow is advisable, too.
- Fixed
- "Seven of the album's twelve tracks were recorded by September 13, 1991". And the other five?
- I was unable to find anything what happened after the incident not even when recording resumed.
A quick note on fidelity to sources:
- "In the United States, Romance debuted at number ten on the Billboard Latin Pop Albums chart for the week of December 14, 1991; it reached number one two weeks later, replacing Daniela Romo's Amada Más Que Nunca.[50][51]" Those sources put it at 10 on Dec 14; I'm not sure where they state that it debuted at 10. Dec 14 to Jan 11 is not 2 weeks. Which of those 2 sources has it replacing DR? (It could be that the Billboard site isn't working properly, as it has space for that info, but is not displaying it. Either way, a more stable source is preferable.) EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According Billboard.biz (the url is http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=is_bmdb_album_id%3A346727&f[1]=itm_field_chart_id%3A295&refine=1 it keeps screwing up when I try to link it), it did debut on the chart on the week of December 14, 1991. I fix the number of weeks it took to reach #1 (I forgot that the Latin pop albums chart were posted bi-weekly at the time of the album's release when I was counting them). The number one album for each week can be found on the bottom by using the "Browse the Latin Pop Albums Archives".
Hello EddieHugh, I believe I have addressed your main issues about the article. If there's anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. In regards, Erick (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- One external link that I would like to see modified.
- Done
- Do we have specific dates for the single release dates or are the months the closest verification we can find?
- No, the months are the closest verification I can find.
- I'd like to see "Promotion" renamed "Singles and promotion" just so readers know where to find them at quick glance.
- Done
- "Certifications" should not be in the same column with "Charts and certifications". I'd personally like to see "Charts" as its own unit and "Certifications" as a grouping underneath it.
- Done
WikiRedactor (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: Fixed everything you addressed. I looked at our article Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 to see how the certifications section should be handled and I followed the format. Thanks for the reply! Erick (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: I'm sorry to bother you, but it's been a week since I addressed the issues you mentioned. I understand if you have been really busy. Erick (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry for the late reply! You always deliver solid work, and I see no further issues that would keep me from supporting the promotion. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: I'm sorry to bother you, but it's been a week since I addressed the issues you mentioned. I understand if you have been really busy. Erick (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Thank you Eddie and Erick for picking up on your discussions following Christmas / New Year, but with some outstanding concerns there, prose among them, and little enough in the way of other reviews apart from WikiRedactor, I can't see consensus to promote being achieved any time soon. I'll therefore archive this and let you take some time away from FAC to see if further improvements can't be made before a possible re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.