Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amarte Es un Placer (album)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2018.

Amarte Es un Placer (album)

 * Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

After my successful FA nomination for Segundo Romance, I am now nominating this FA. This is a pop album by Luis Miguel like Aries (which I also got FA). Regrettably, it's also his last good album before they started to go downhill (except for México en la Piel which is also good). I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * A few general issues:
 * In a number of cases you provide templates when there is no link to the source – 6, 16, 17 and lots more. There's no point in showing the template in such cases.
 * Page numbers are required for newspapers and journals where there is no online link. You provide these in some cases but not others, e.g. 15, 16, 17, 19 and more.
 * Who publishes Billboard? In some cases you show Prometheus Global Media, in others Nielsen Business Media. In refs 85, 86 and 87 neither is shown.


 * Other points:
 * Ref 2: link goes to "404 error"
 * Refs 56 and 58: should "tronc" be all lower case as in 56, or "Tronc" as in 58?
 * Ref 61: the source has a different headline
 * Ref 65: main link and archive link both go to blank pages
 * Ref 71: main link times out. Archive gives "page not found"

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added urls to search on Newsbank which is where I found these articles. Billboard articles prior to 2009 are published Nielsen Business Media while Prometheus Global Media is the current publisher. The albumschart doesn't have a publisher parameter and doesn't work for refs 85-87. Ref 65 requires a download now for whatever reason, but it still verifies the list of winners. Ref 71 works fine on my end. Erick (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Freikorp
Despite these minor points I'm happy to support this nomination now. Well done on the article. No pressure but I'm looking for comments on my nomination here. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "which lasted from 1999 into 2000" - I'm really not a fan of this choice of words. I mean, running from 1999 till 2000 could just mean going from December 1999 till January 2000. I'd try and be more specific, say mention when the tour started and then how many months it went for.
 * "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony and declined an invitation to perform" - this is interesting - is there any indication as to why he declined?
 * I'd at least reduce the amount of times you use the term 'noted' as per WP:SAY, if not get rid of them entirely.
 * 'the production sounds "dated"' - should this past tense? I.e "sounded dated"?
 * Thanks for your comments and support. I have addressed everything you brought up. I searched everywhere but couldn't find the reason why Miguel refused to perform for the Latin Grammys. He's not known to be a public guy except when promoting his albums. I'll comment on your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is also about an album. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For this part (Despite the popularity of crossover his comntempraries Latin artists), I am assuming you mean “his contemporaries”. Also the word “contemporaries” is misspelled here.
 * For this sentence (Amarte Es un Placer debuted at number one in Spain, and on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States.), I would remove the comma after “Spain” as the verb phrase “debuted at number one” is also carried over to apply to the Billboard charts part of the sentence.
 * Would it be possible to move the image of Mariah Carey to the top of the “Background” section to avoid having it clip outside of the section and interfere with the audio samples in the next section? Feel free to say no as this is more of a stylistic preference.
 * For the Mariah Carey image, I would specify in the caption the year in which it was taken.
 * For this part “series on which he covers classic”, I would revise “on which” to “in which”.
 * For this part “absence of two years on the music scene”, I would revise “on the music scene” to “from the music scene”.
 * For this part “The album's final title, Amarte Es un Placer was announced on 17 August 1999.”, I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “final title” as you have not mentioned any tentative titles or working titles prior to this. It may be better just to say “The album’s title” instead, unless there were other titles in consideration prior to the announcement.
 * I would suggest a link to rock ballad when you are describing the track “Tu Mirada” in the “Composition” section.
 * For this part (performed live covers of "Y" and "La Bikina”), I would include the names of the original artists for both songs if known and possibly the years in which they were first released.
 * The link for “AllMusic” needs to be moved up to its first reference in the body of the article. It is currently linked in the “Critical reception” section, but the publication was reference in the previous section on the album’s promotion.
 * I am pretty terrible at writing reception sections so I will leave that section to more experienced reviewers.
 * Ricky Martin is linked twice in the body of the article. Please unlink him in the “Accolades” section.
 * Thanks for the comments and a Happy New Year to you too! I believe I have addressed your comments. I will look at your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

 * "Despite the popularity of crossover his contemporaries such as Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias," - missing a word or two here
 * "including a Grammy nomination for Best Latin Pop Performance and the Latin Grammy Awards for Album of the Year and Best Pop Vocal Album." - I'd invert this, so the awards came first and then the nomination
 * "In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series in which he covers classic Latin American boleros.[2]" - needs a comma before in which
 * "After an absence of two years from the music scene" - "music scene" may be too informal
 * "He expressed the upcoming album would be a return to pop recordings" - expressed isn't the right word; I think you could pick a more precise verb
 * "The album's title, Amarte Es un Placer " - needs an WP:NBSP
 * Juan Carlos Calderón and Record Plant also both need WP:NBSPs
 * "orchestrated romantic ballads" - this needs an WP:NBSP; same with brass instruments and "No Me Fío"
 * "The opening track, "Tu Mirada"" - need a comma after Tu Mirada
 * " A concert was planned for the San Jose Arena in California on New Year's Eve, but was canceled because the gross income would not meet Miguel's requirements.[32]" - can you elaborate on his requirements, briefly, here?
 * "He later did five shows" - I'd prefer a different verb than did
 * 6 May 2000 needs an WP:NBSP
 * "Miguel was accompanied by a 13-piece band during his tour which included horns, keyboards, guitars and three female backup singers" - keep serial comma consistent
 * 'On 24 October 2000, WEA released the Vivo live album and video, from Miguel's concerts in Monterrey' - no comma after video
 * "two-out-of-five stars" - needs an NBSP (and again in critical reception)
 * number of song titles in the critical reception section need NBSPs
 * "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony" - show up is too informal

These are some initial nitpicks. More comments pending.  ceran  thor 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I think I did the nbsp, feel free to correct them if they're as I'm not too knowledgeable about utilizing it. The source does not specify the requirements on the box office gross he wanted. Erick (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did quite a bit of NBSP cleanup and a little bit more copyediting, which you can see here. I think you were confused by the placement of the nbsp formatting; it's supposed to go between the words you want to keep together (see my edits for what I mean). That being said, I now support based on the prose.  ceran  thor 05:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
I didn't see a media review -- you can post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Amarteesunplacer.jpg: License and use are OK.
 * File:Mariah Carey11 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg: Use seems fine for me, image fairly blurry and source is broken.
 * File:Luis Miguel - O Tu O Ninguna.ogg and File:Luis Miguel - Te Propongo Esta Noche.ogg: License seems OK, use however seems a mite questionable since this is an album article, not about a specific song.
 * ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ::
 * Thanks for the media review. The two samples is meant to represent what the ballads and uptempo tracks sound like to the read as they are mentioned several times in the composition section. Erick (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * and, I'm inclined to be cautious on this. Before we promote, we need these samples sorting. Unless you want a second opinion, I'm inclined to regard them as questionable. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Both samples have a critical commentary by a reliable source and they both represent the two types of music that is represented in the album that are mentioned several times by sources.On top of that, it's not uncommon for FA-class albums to have samples, (see ). I'm not sure what the problem here is.  Erick (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case I'd ask for second opinions. "Has sourced discussion in the article text" is not a NFCC criterium, if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is, and that might be a problem here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As it stands, this review has not passed criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA and so cannot be promoted. I wonder if could chip in here? Sarastro (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb is that the more non-free media in an article, the harder each becomes to justify. One representative sample gives readers an idea of what sort of music is heard on the album; at the moment I'm not seeing a strong enough FUR on the files' description pages to include both. That's not to say it wouldn't be possible to justify, just at the moment it isn't there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have we made any progress addressing this? We cannot promote until the image issue is addressed. Sarastro (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am not convinced that it meets NFCC#8. If the song samples were representative of the album & discussed as such it'd pass, but as is that does not appear to be the case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to see some response here. This cannot become a FA until the image review is passed. Sarastro (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of response, I've been busy in real life. I will respond to this either this Friday or the weekend. Erick (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have updated the rationale for both samples on the file descriptions for their justifications on the article. Erick (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by SN54129
In light of there seeming to be a bit of an impasse here—and also in light of the fact that this review is months old—can I ask to have a look at this version—and would it be acceptable to both reviewers and curator? I'm in no way attempting to address the actual issue, I know, nor the seeming contradiction between this and other album articles. But may I suggest, Erick, that the optimum strategy here would be to let this version be passed, but at the same time take the broader question to either the wikiproject or the copyright noticeboard for further evaluation. And if the files are subsequently green-lighted, then they can be reintroduced, per this discussion. What say you?  ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

 * I support this FAC nomination, a great read cannot find any plausible cause for opposition right now. Once resolves previous concerns over the media sample, I see no reason why this nomination cannot pass. Best –  jona  ✉ 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal
It is difficult to understand why this article has been at FAC for over two months, when basics of reliable sourcing are missing. From this version, samples only:


 * Reference number 5, cited 4 times, goes here; what is that? How is it reliable?
 * I can locate no indication that elsalvador.com (ref number 7) is reliable. Please provide if available.
 * struck two, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 38 says it is La Nacion, but the link goes to Viva, a supplemental magazine of La Nation. Should that link go dead, no one will know where to find the article.
 * Additionally, the text cited to ref 38 is not verified by ref 38-- in fact, it says something entirely different about who holds what record.
 * Ref 53 goes nowhere.
 * Ref 81, what makes lacuarta.com a reliable source?

Prose samples:
 * Following his concerts at Radio City Music, Miguel performed 21 consecutive shows at the National Auditorium in Mexico City beginning on 24 February; beating the previous record of 20 set by Mexican group Timbiriche, and set the record for most attendees with an overall count of 255,000 patrons.[38] The concerts drew more than 255,000 attendees, another record for the artist. (grammatical errors, redundancy on the 255,000 and presumably Radio City Music Hall? Also, not verified by source given.)
 * Promotion section, three consecutive paragraph begin with "Miguel ... "; please try to vary the prose.
 * Miguel returned to touring in the United States on 24 March 2000, performed in several cities including Miami, Chicago, Atlantic City, and Houston.


 * ... Miguel received two nominations at the 2000 El Premio de la Gente ... what is El Premio de la Gente?

It is regrettable for the nominator that for two months, no one has pointed out the prose and sourcing problems. I suggest withdrawal, thorough source checking, and an independent copyedit. I did not look deeply or comprehensively at every source, but for the few in Spanish that I did check, I did not find examples of direct translation (copyvio). I think this article could make it through FAC after these suggestions are addressed. There is a real need to vary the prose to tell a compelling story-- without that, it will be hard to get reviewers to engage. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 5 is dead and I've fixed it with the archive link to the actual Terra Networks article. Ref 7 is El Diario de Hoy (which I just out found today). I already have an archiveurl for Ref 38 ready should it be dead (I always have an article archived either at WayBack Machine and/or WebCitation to prevent LINKROT). Are you referring to the patron count or the number of the consecutive show? For the former, I previously had a reference that may have been removed by accident during a copyedit. In any case, I restored the proper reference with the correct patron count. La Cuarta (along with the aforementioned El Diario de Hoy) is part of the Latin American Newspaper Association network. I can't directly link to articles Newsbank summary articles, I'm going to need suggestions on this one. I'll get to the prose section next. Erick (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I suspect whatever I decide here will be unpopular with someone. We have four supports, two of which seem to come from detailed reviews. And we have a reasoned oppose which suggests withdrawal - and as the FAC instructions state, a FAC will be archived "after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn". Additionally, this FAC is over two months old, otherwise I may have left it a little longer. But given how long it has been here, and the unlikelihood of attracting more reviews after such a long time, I think the best option is to archive. I would recommend working with SandyGeorgia (if she's available) or another experienced hand at FAC and bringing it back after this, and after the usual two week waiting period. I'm sorry this has come so late in the day, but as Sandy said, "It is regrettable for the nominator that for two months, no one has pointed out the prose and sourcing problems". Sarastro (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.