Talk:No Me Queda Más/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting read through will post comments over the next few hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Intro


 * "while the single became the third single in the United States." So this was the third single from the album and her third single in total or what? Please clarify.
 * "the song was included in every venue." Awkward, "She performed the song in every venue on the tour" would be better.
 * Please avoid quotes in the introduction. They are also heavily stacked in favour of the song which makes it look POV. The whole mid section dramatically needed a cut and summary that is was well received. It reads like a magazine. All you need to say is that is was successful. Review comments belong in the main body not the lead.
 * "While in love with Selena's sister, Suzette Quintanilla, lead keyboardist, Ricky Vela was angry when he had met her husband, Billy. Written out-of-emotions, Vela wrote a poem to Suzette explaining the betrayal he had felt. He then turned it into a song that A.B. Quintanilla III wanted Selena to record it for the album Amor Prohibido. " -the prose here is a little clumsy and reads like a story.
 * "Other popular artists such as Kat DeLuna, David Archuleta and Prince Royce, has covered the song during their live tours." -have covered.
 * "During the entire month of March 2010, "No Me Queda Mas" and a few other Selena music videos were selected for a Selena tribute for her fifteenth anniversary of her passing to 42 million homes nationwide on Music Choice On Demand." the 15th anniversary not her fifteenth anniversary.


 * Background and production


 * "is highly known as a "fan favorite" tune" -awkward, something like "one of Selena's most popular songs would be better.
 * again the Ricky Vela part needs a rewrite. You should not duplicate text from the intro.
 * too many "beautiful" references. Doesn't come across as NPOV. The background and production is supposed to be a solid insight into production, the vast majority of it would be better suited to the reception.
 * no close quotation mark at the end of the bottom paragraph


 * Composition
 * Why is "There's nothing left" quoted?


 * Live performances
 * "During the "Noche De Carnaval" concert in Miami, Florida, Selena wore a black see-through bustier, black mini-skirt with black knee-high boots." WHy is this relevant to the song?

"Extremely awesome job, lovely, best, beautiful. biggest, high praise, very amusing and lovely "etc. -Sorry I can't even begin to review that section. It comes across as extreme POV even if they are quotes. Way too many quotes and looks like fan cruft. A light summary remarking that it was very successful with Hispanics and seen as one of her best songs would be more appropriate. A couple of reviews are fine but that many looks like you are POV stacking. No negative criticism of the song?
 * Critical reception


 * Music video: Background and development


 * Please merge this into the Background and production section. This is more the sort of material I had expected to read there. In the reception section of the music video please merge into the main reception section, after cutting down on the quotes as I mentioned above to its fair sized. Please merge video synopsis into Composition and lyric content and rename it Composition and content or something.

"Victoria Díaz of Grupo Reforma had reviewed the song and ended her review about the video being "addicting and beautiful"". Addicting? Addictive?
 * Reception


 * Sources
 * imdb is not a reliable source and should be discredited as a source.
 * Heavy use of Amazon, a commercial marketplace as a source. Amazon is not a reliable source to write an encyclopedia article.
 * What makes Ainnow.com and Vodpod.com WP:RS?
 * Irregular date formatting. Please change 2010-09-04 etc to 4 September 2010.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Needs a copyedit/rewrite


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Contains numerous unreliable sources


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Needs a reorganization and major cut of reviews, especially in the lead


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It looks like it has been written by a fan with heavy stacking with gushing comments


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm failing this as I feel the problems with it are too numerous to make it worth putting it on hold. I recommend you address the points I've identified in the article give it a major rewrite/reorganization as suggested, cut the parts which come across as failing NPOV and try to improve its overall quality before renominating.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * all or most issues that you have provided in this review. I'll nominate it for a copy-edit before re-nominating. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)