Talk:Dreaming of You (Selena album)/GA4

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Some dab links
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Some problematic links
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does the article use British date formatting when it's about an American subject?
 * , it's a habit :/ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to verify the accuracy of what's been written when some sentences don't have citations at the end of them.
 * I hope I have fixed this issue. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Info box
 * Way too many genres. I don't see how an album can be five genres. An album is always one genre which may have influences other songs in some of the songs. The parameter is Genre, not Genre(s). I'd say Latin pop is the only one that probably encompasses the whole album melodically. It's clearly not an R&B album, but probably has some R&B or R&B-infleunce songs with elements of it, for example.
 * I changed it based on AllMusic's assessment of the album. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * is the fifth and final → Shouldn't it be 'was' as she's not alive?
 * Well if I use the past-tense tone, it would imply that there was another release that was considered her fifth and final and not Dreaming of You. For example, Dreaming of You was the fifth and final album. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But 'is' implies that it is currently so. — Calvin999  09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Link studio album
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * American Tejano → I don't think 'tejano' is needed
 * It was removed by an editor. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * artist → Implies she is a painter or something. Use singer or recording artist
 * This was also fixed by an editor. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead is not structured correctly and it does not follow the order of the rest of the article. You open it with talking about it's commercial and critical success before the background, production etc. The whole lead section needs to be re-ordered. At the moment, it's a pretty big fail.
 * I understand, but the article was modeled by the FA album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. This article was suggested by Snuggums for Erick's FA article this past year. I found it be unique and different than other album articles and is the reason why I decided that it would be a great model for Dreaming of You since it has failed miserably many times. Erick asked me to give this article another try earlier this year and is why I took the suggestion to use the Beatles album. Best, jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't understand why a non-chronological lead was used for an FA. But with respect, we aren't discussing that article here. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore it's chronological order should be reflected in the lead too. — Calvin999
 * According to WP:LEAD, the lead does not need to be in chronological order but be written in a cohesive matter that establishes the subject's notability (especially in the first few sentences) which I did. If other editors want to continue using their way of writing album articles then that's cool, this is how I wrote the article (with a FA model in mind) while also abiding to WP:LEAD. Here is what WP:LEAD saids:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
 * Best, jona   (talk)   22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be, but I don't know why you wouldn't make it conchological? It just doesn't make sense reading it how you've structured it. That would be a flaw pointed out at FAC. Also, the following is not needed or relevant to this article: — Calvin999  23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"After signing a recording contract with EMI Latin in 1989, the label denied Selena a requested crossover after she made three demonstration recordings. After her Grammy Award nomination for Live (1993) was announced, Selena signed with SBK Records to begin recording her crossover album, which was front-page news in Billboard magazine. In March 1994, she released Amor Prohibido; in interviews she said her English-language album was still being developed." - This can be removed. — Calvin999 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it doesn't need to be changed. You're suggestions for the lead are based on how and what you want it to be; which is not how I want to write the lead since (as it stands currently) is in accordance to the MOS for the lead. Best, jona   (talk)   19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The album was released posthumously, but you don't say this. This is an important fact. As it stands, it reads as though it was her fifth and final album she release before she died, which isn't the case.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be citations in the lead. Everything should be sourced and cited in the main body.
 * I removed the ref. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the album 35× platinum → This is latin certifications, right? As 35x platinum in US certifying would be 35 million, not 3.5 million.
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say only the fourth paragraph, and at a push the third too, are relevant. This was her fifth album of her career, so I don't see how the first two paragraphs are relevant. That's for her bio and I would say her first and second album backgrounds.
 * Background
 * It had been suggested by Ruhrfisch to include a little about Selena since she is not a well known singer outside of the Americas. He suggested this for every PR request for her articles that I worked on. If you still think the information is excessive, I wouldn't mind trimming. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the point though. Background should only be included pertaining to this album. I.E. what inspired it etc. Not information that pre-dates the first album years and years before. — Calvin999  09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Music and lyrics
 * Move the audio files to the left because the picture in the section above is interfering with it.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Release and commercial performance
 * Don't mix the release info with commercial performance. Release info, it's various formats and the different countries/dates it was released in should be its own paragraph.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does Outside the U.S. use a level three header and not a level two header?
 * Because that section discusses the commercial performance the album had outside the US, where the release and CP section discusses info that pertains to the US. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Chart and sales performance → Redundant title. Remove it.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cultural impact → Make this it's own section.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Singles
 * Should go after Composition and recording but before Release.
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * This should go before Commercial performance
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Charts
 * Tables are supposed to say US, not U.S.
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They should all be separate and not joined up too, as it interferes with the WP:ACCESS
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Singles charts
 * Bit of a pointless section.
 * Removed. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * References
 * 163, 164 and 165 have red link date issues.
 * jona  (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to do this to you, but every date in every reference needs to be changed from British to American date formatting. You've used 24 October 2015, whereas it should be October 24, 2015.
 * No it's alright, it is a bad habit of mine. They are all fixed now. jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't fault the quality of language, grammar and writing. Bafflegab has done a great job as always. But there are some major structure issues which need sorting before I can pass this. On hold for 7 days. But you should be able to rectify these quite quickly. It just a case of moving things about, not removing or adding. — Calvin999 22:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Status
 * Thanks for reviewing, I have fixed all issues you have raised concerns over. Best, jona   (talk)   01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made responses. — Calvin999  09:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you still going to finish the review or can you ask for a second opinion? Thanks, jona   (talk)   19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see a response and forgot it about it to be honest. Should have pinged me sooner! Will get back to this this afternoon. — Calvin999  09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking over, I can't see where some of my points have since been addressed. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  10:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which are? jona   (talk)   07:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The one about the structure of the lead. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to change it, it is not in violation of MOS:LEAD. So, please fail the article or ask for a second opinion. Thanks, jona   (talk)   21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the original reviewer has abandoned this review. I am passing this article as GA, since apart from something which is not part of the GA criteria, all concerns have been addressed. sst ✈ 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't abandon this review. If you had of bothered to check my user talk, you would have seen than from the 18th December to 4th January, I had no access to a computer. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  09:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)