Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2/archive1

All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2

 * Nominator(s): – jona  ✉ 23:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the second volume of Selena's hits. The article has since been expanded through sources retrieved from WP:REX and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Thanks – jona  ✉ 23:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on text. The lead uses seems comprised of flowery language that goes into wp:PEACOCK territory, as well as using too many words just for the sake of it. I’ll give a more specific breakdown in the morning of the issues I see. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I did some modifications to texts that I believed might be considered to be peacockish. Let me know if I missed anything, hopefully, the mods took care of this issue. Thanks – jona  ✉ 00:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My review is on hold for the present because of this, but I will pick it up once that is closed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the other editor was blocked as a sock but that is unrelated to this FAC as far as I can tell. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks ! I’ll crack in with the review this morning. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead & IB
 * "released posthumously on February 29, 2000": Unsourced. At no point in this article body is the release date mentioned or cited (I don't count the announcement of "Leap Day 2000" as valid: announcements get shifted, historical release dates don't). That's a huge red flag. Even by the end of the article a reader has no idea whether this was a release into one small market, a region one or a global one. I would expect to see something about release information somewhere, but having it unsourced in the opening line and IB is not the way to go.
 * "Selena persisted as": 'persisted as': Although I speak BrEng, I'm not sure this is right in AmEng either and should be better expressed
 * "surpassing the sales of living musicians with her releases." I know you're said it's a posthumous release in 2000, but we have no idea of when she died (this point is slightly pernickety, but either just a few words of context are needed, or 'surpassing the sales of all other artists on the label')
 * "Vol. 2 encompasses 16 songs": it doesn't "encompass" them, is contains or comprises of them
 * "Subsequent to Selena's death": What's wrong with "After"?
 * "critical acclaim from music critics, who lauded the": reaching for the sick bag here. 'critical acclaim' is one of the most overused phrases in Wiki's popular culture output. Do you have a secondary source which backs up the claim? Not a few (primary source) reviews who go overboard with praise, but a secondary source that examines all the reviews and comes to that judgement? (I see the one professional rating from the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music only rates it as 3/5 stars, so I'm thinking probably not. Ditto "lauded". That's fan-speak, not encyclopaedic wording.
 * "Vol. 2 procured a nomination": procured?

That's just the lead and I have gone lightly on it too. I could have been more critical about it, but for two paragraphs, I think that's enough to show that this shouldn't be at FAC until it's re-written from top to bottom. However, a quick skim through the rest shows the same sorts of problems also show up there. Background – no need for the pull quote, that should be in the body with come context. In too many points words are erroneously selected, which either jars or leaves this reader wondering whether this is an encyclopaedic entry or a puff piece: "eclipsing the sales of contemporaneous musicians", "pendant adorned with an image of Selena" There's a quote in the Background section: "buying frenzy". I can't see that phrase anywhere in the online copy, and that's a real problem for me. My Oppose stands, based solely on the text. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review
The article only has one image, and I believe it has the appropriate licensing, attribution, and usage. ALT text is there too. This passes the image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)