Talk:Anthology (Selena album)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 14:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Needs alt
 * you are supposed to describe the image, not state the obvious
 * That's what WP:ALT says. The image should indentify what it is which is a cover art of an album by the singer. All other descriptions, or going into too much detail, are not what WP:ALT is, which should be breif and to the point; "relevant to the article" as WP:ALT puts it. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to read the example then. The first one doesn't state "flag of Denmark", but it says "A red flag divided into four by a white cross slightly offset to the left." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No source for release date on the body of the article
 * Studios, same issue as the previous
 * Location of the studios?
 * For producers see Producer
 * remove the word producer, its redundant here

✅

Lead
✅
 * Selena's family has been criticized by fans and the media for exploiting the singer and cannibalizing her murder by commercializing her repertoire. → see below
 * The album has received a positive response from music critics → should be present on the critical reception as well
 * music critics → link to music journalism
 * Erlewine believed it provided listeners with an assortment of the singer's vocal range. This was a similar assessment → see below, this is not true

Background

 * A.B. Quintanilla; himself, Suzette Quintanilla → A.B. Quintanilla, Suzette Quintanilla
 * Since Selena's death, her family has been criticized by fans and the media for exploiting the singer and cannibalizing on her murder by commercializing her repertoire. → I don't understand the inclusion of this? The article doesn't talk about this album and was only published in 2015, 17 years after the album's release.
 * The article does talk about Selena's legacy being "ruined" by her family ("[Abraham] Quintanilla seizes any opportunity to cash in on Selena's legacy."), material constantly being released ("We're not suggesting the family stop releasing the singer's previous work", "For the most part, the Quintanilla family's hearts have appeared to be in the right place over the years, and there is undoubtedly considerable pressure to protect Selena's work.", "This isn't the first time the Quintanilla family has cashed in on the late singer and her beloved music — not even the first time this year.") and criticisms received by fans and the media ("we're starting to feel uneasy about the way the family is handling the singer's legacy.", "proof that even rabid Selena fans are uncomfortable with her image being exploited.") The reason for inclusion is to show that the family has released material by the singer since her death and the negative reception from critics and fans of constantly doing so. It's in the "background" section for a reason, it doesn't have to talk about Anthology explicitly but to provide readers an overview of the events that occurred prior to the album's release, the family's desire to preserve her memory by releasing material, and the reactions by fans and the media on the constant releases. I believe the cited information provides that information.
 * Nice explanation. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

✅

Music

 * "three compact discs or cassette tapes" → these can be used along with the missing source for a release date on a release section
 * I added the release information in the commercial performance section, I'm not going to create a new subsection with just one sentence.
 * How does that make any sense? You don't need to create a new one, just re-title the reception to "Release and reception" and add it there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * " official Latin album for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics." → which is?
 * "and is the first song by Selena to impact Billboard's music chart in August 1987" → peaks, charts? This information should be in another section
 * And why should it? This section is about the songs featured on the album, why create another subsection discussing all the commercial impacts of all the songs on this album that was previously released on its parent album? I believe that will WP:BLOAT the article. Though I have added the peak and chart for this one as the others are mentioned as well.
 * Move it to the reception section, see above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Last Dance" and "On the Radio" by Donna Summer, "The Hustle" by Van McCoy and the Soul City Symphony, and "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor and "Funkytown" by Lipps Inc. " → release dates for the songs
 * "Writing for The Orlando Sentinel, music critics Natalie Pignato and Umatilla High found the first disc to retain its fast-paced accelerated beats from the first track to its last" → critical reception
 * The critics provided a critical summary of the first disc, not the entire album. That review can be found in the critical reception section of this article.
 * So just state, regarding the first disc. My point still stands. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It does state that "found the first disc". This is just a stylistic difference between how you would have written it and how I would have written it. The critics provided commentary for each disc and then provided a review of what they thought about the album as a whole, which is in the critical reception section. I believe how I have written this section flows great: discussing the tracks featured on the album, tidbits on those tracks, and ending each para with a critic's review of that specific disc. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't said to re-write it. However, I understand your POV and I agree. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Following the impact of Selena's death, Christopher John Farley of Time magazine, wrote how the producers were most likely regretting their decision" → doesn't belong in this section ❌
 * Which section should it go? The cited information is about the song, not the entire album.
 * Just remove it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Jim Beal of the San Antonio Express-News hailed the song as the best track off of Selena Live!. → same as previous
 * Has been removed.


 * Abraham was surprised to have found the updated song to sound natural, noting the stark stylistic differences between cumbia and ranchera → bias as he is the composer of most tracks
 * His son (A. B. Quintanilla) is the composer of most of the songs, not him, and the song in question was written by E. J. Ledesma.
 * Still family, still bias. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't record the song, he didn't write the song, he didn't produce the song, he didn't arrange the song, and he didn't remix the song. He even said it himself how he didn't believe it would have worked, doubting its success, and was surprised it did when he heard it. This is vastly different from: I received the song, heard it, and believed the song would have worked under any style. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I liked the way you re-worded it, sounds less bias. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "The third disc contained more of Selena's best works than the discs that proceeded it, according to critics Pignato and High" → the wrong section, belongs on the critical reception
 * The critics provided a critical summary of the third disc, not the entire album. That review can be found in the critical reception section of this article.
 * So just state, regarding the first disc. My point still stands. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It does state that "found the third disc". This is another stylistic difference between you and I. The critics provided commentary for each disc and then provided a review of what they thought about the album as a whole, which is in the critical reception section. I believe how I have written this section flows great: discussing the tracks featured on the album, tidbits on those tracks, and ending each para with a critic's review of that specific disc. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * didn't said to re-write it. However, I understand your POV and I agree. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

✅
 * Every song that says "written by X or produced by X and Y..." there is a need to remove said information as it is below on the tracklist and there is a need to focus on the sounds and lyrics of the songs here.
 * Maybe create subsections here, from tracks 1-5 and then from 6-10, according to what's appropriated. You divided each disc by paragraph, which also works.

Critical reception
✅
 * "of the singer's vocal range" → source states "a good sense of the range of her talents", stick to the sources
 * "A similar review in The Orlando Sentinel echoed Erlewine's comments on Anthology, " → it didn't as he never talked about her vocal abilities
 * "Fernando del Valle, writing for The Monitor, found several music retailers in the Rio Valley stocking Anthology ahead of its release. Laura Fajardo, manager of Camelot Music in Harlingen, Texas, noticed that "Selena fever" remains high, albeit not fanatically" → how is this critical reception?

Commercial performance

 * and Regional Mexican Albums → see below
 * It doesn't say it can't be included in the article's body


 * Anthology marks the third consecutive number-one debut for Selena, → in which chart?
 * With 65 cumulative weeks atop the Top Latin Albums chart, Anthology extended Selena's record of the most weeks an artist has spent at number one → Anthology extended Selena's record of the most weeks an artist has spent at number one, 65 cumulative weeks atop the Top Latin Albums chart, ???
 * which was the first box set to debut on the chart for the year → irrelevant
 * Anthology sold 3,500 more units than Ricky Martin's Vuelve, knocking it from the top spot → same as previous
 * How is this irrelevant?
 * "A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information.", per Record charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading the guideline, I agree with you. However, stating that an album sold more units than the album it knocked off is not irrelevant and does not violate the guideline you have provided. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Anthology sold 9,500 units the following week, remaining atop the Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart. The album rose to number 131 on the Billboard 200, despite a drop in sales.[33] In its third week, Anthology sold 7,900 units, a 15% decrease from the previous tracking week. The recording remained at number one on the Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart, while it slipped from the Billboard 200 to number 151.[34] Anthology rebounded with an 11% sales increase, selling 9,000 units and remaining at number one for its fourth consecutive week on the Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart, while the set rose to number 137 on the Billboard 200.[35] →
 * I'm not sure what you want me to do with this para?
 * Nuke it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Typically, the Mother's Day weekend holiday is one of the top-selling periods for Latin albums in the United States. → source?
 * The next citation is the source.


 * flabbergasted → surprised
 * did not net a sales gain, → did not gain in sales that week.
 * as it was one of few Latin recordings to dip in sales for that week. → remove
 * The album remained at number one on the Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart for its sixth consecutive week, while it dipped to number 151 on the Billboard 200 chart. → irrelevant
 * How is the album's commercial performance irrelevant?
 * See above on Record charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sales of the album continued to decrease, it sold 7,500 units the following tracking week, though remained atop the Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums. On the Billboard 200, Anthology remained at number 151. In its eighth week, Anthology sold less than 6,000 units, falling to number two on the Top Latin Albums chart, though it remained at number one on the Regional Mexican Albums chart.[38] After falling to number five in the following tracking week, Anthology rebounded to number four on the Top Latin Albums chart on the issue dated June 20. It remained at number one for its ninth consecutive week on the Regional Mexican Albums chart → same as previous
 * How is the album's commercial performance irrelevant?
 * See above


 * Anthology remained atop the Regional Mexican Albums chart for an additional two weeks, the most weeks an album has spent at number one for the year, while it was the third most weeks at number one on the Top Latin Albums chart → Anthology was the third album with most weeks at number one on the Top Latin Albums chart.
 * Why remove the fact that it was the most weeks at number one on the Regional Mexican Albums chart?


 * There is way too much detailed irrelevant information here, I will need to read this again after you fix it.
 * The album's commercial performance is not irrelevant.
 * It is when you go week by week, saying it rose 5 spots, felt 7, and so on...see Record Charts. This should be way more summarized. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed its track trajectory. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job! ✅ MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Track listing

 * Fine

Personnel

 * Fine

Charts

 * Please fix tables according to Template:Album chart
 * The template would distrupt the current citation style I have used throughout the article.
 * Well, something has to change. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to disrupt the citation style I have used for a template that even on its documentation page questions its usefulness. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is useful. But I understand. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove Regional Mexican Albums, per WP:Album charts
 * I am confused about how they word it. I get what you mean, but what the table says is that if the album charted on the Top Latin Albums chart (which it did) and any other Billboard genre-album chart (which it did not), then you cannot add Regional Mexican Albums. Anthology only charted on the Top Latin Albums chart and the Billboard 200 chart, which the Billboard 200 is not a genre-album chart but an all-inclusive chart. I think what you, and what the able you believe should say, is that if the album has charted on the Top Latin Albums chart and the Billboard 200, then you cannot add Regional Mexican Albums. But currently, it does not say that. Also, the guideline does not state that I cannot mention the Regional Mexican Albums chart in the article body that you would like me to remove.
 * You are correct, the wording is confusing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

✅

Certification
✅
 * It redirects to her hits albums, not Anthology

Overall

 * Let me know once you are done with the issues. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, I appreciate it. I have fixed most of what you have asked me to fix, while there were others that I question. Best – jona  ✉ 13:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to go trough each section again. I left comments. Please sign your comments MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded and fix most of the issues. – jona  ✉ 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a couple more responses, I will check the music and Commercial performance sections later. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the alt. Best – jona  ✉ 12:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one issue missing. Good job! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Thanks – jona  ✉ 20:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)