Talk:Cómo Me Duele Perderte/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review! Apologies it took so long for someone to get around to reviewing this, it came to my attention as part of the Women in Green edit-a-thon. Hope I'm finding you well. I'll start off giving my section-by-section comments, followed by a check against GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Background and composition

 * Are there dates of publication for [2], [5] and/or [10]? If so, they should be included in the citations.
 * How much of the first paragraph is directly relevant to the subject of this article? I feel like the first three sentences could be condensed a little, just to maintain focus.
 * "she draws from a variety of music from the Caribbean" Could you expand a bit on this? What kinds of music is she drawing from? What effect did that have on the song?
 * "is a mid-tempo salsa and bachata" Is it a fusion genre of salsa and bachata? If so, might be worth clarifying that.
 * "features a Dominican Republic melody" Wouldn't the right demonym be simply "Dominican melody"?

Promotion and reception

 * Perhaps "released by Epic Records", instead of tagging them onto the end of the sentence?
 * Could we get a short synopsis of the music video? It's hard to understand Corpus' comments without the context, is all.
 * Is Maddy Costa's review negative or positive? It's a little unclear if it's making fun of Estefan or complimenting her.
 * "Michael Paoletta wrote a favorable review of the remixes the artist is [...]" Could do with a couple more connectors, like "Michael Paoletta wrote in a favorable review of the remixes that the artist is [...]"
 * This paragraph flip-flops between using past and present tense. This should be made more consistent.
 * Consider moving [19] to just after "number eight in Spain" just to make verification a little easier.
 * [20] only explicitly cites the Tropical Airplay chart, might be worth inserting another references that links directly to the Hot Latin Songs chart, as you already have for Dance Club Songs. Again for easier verification.

Formats and track listing

 * Is the subheading of "Remixes" necessary?
 * Is there a secondary source that could be cited for these? No worries if not.
 * The AV media citation is bringing up an error, as you've used the "other=" field instead of "author=". This needs fixing.

Charts

 * How come the Tropical Airplay chart is mentioned in the prose above, but not here?
 * Might be worth mentioning how long the song stayed on each of the charts, if not here, then in the "reception" section.

Lead

 * "from her ninth studio" Shouldn't this be "from her ninth studio album"?
 * Ditto from above, consider rearranging "by Epic Records" to earlier in the sentence.
 * Sentence about its critical reception seems to imply that the reviews featured are the only ones that exist, consider a wee rewrite.
 * "features dramatic scenes" A little vague. Could use a more explicit synopsis.

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * A couple small grammatical errors, noted above. Nothing that can't be easily fixed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * There's one CS1 citation error, noted above. Again, easily fixed.
 * B. 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):
 * All statements have inline citations.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecks revealed no original research.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig reveals no copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I think it over-contextualises a bit in the first paragraph of the "Background" section. This could do with a wee trim.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Appears fair and balanced in its coverage.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Last reversion was in January 2023, some months before the expansions that led to the GA nomination.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image in infobox has valid fair use rationale.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Only image is the cover of the single
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is almost there! A couple grammatical errors, a single citation error and an issue with over-contextualising in the background section is all that I think are holding this back from GA. I will mark this to be held for now. Ping me once you've addressed my comments and I'll give this another look over. Excellent work! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll have this done either this Sunday or Monday. Erick (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all the time I have for today, I'll do the rest tomorrow. Erick (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Grnrchst How does it look now? Erick (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I'll pass the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Grnrchst How does it look now? Erick (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I'll pass the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)