Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Formula, Vol. 1/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 promoted by Ian Rose 13:24, 28 March 2014.

Formula, Vol. 1

 * ''Nominator(s): Magiciandude

I am nominating this article for FAC after working about a year over it and it passed GA. The article is about a debut album by Romeo Santos who was the lead singer of Aventura, a bachata-musican band in the United States. Aventura helped bachata gain popularity with the urban and younger crowd during the 2000s. After splitting up with the band two years ago, Romeo Santos released his debut album called Formula, Vol. 1 which became the best-selling Latin in the United States in 2012 and received a Grammy nomination. I need to point out that most of the sources are in Spanish. I look forward to resolving any problems or questions. Erick (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No one seems to be bringing any issues up, so I'll take that as acquiescence. There seems to be very little available about the recording and composition of the album, and I wish there was a way to organize Critical reception better, but I'll say support. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Erick (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from WonderBoy1998
 * Oh my, there are various links that need replacement, including two dead ones. Here
 * "Six singles were released: "You", "Promise", "Mi Santa", "All Aboard", "Rival", and "La Diabla" - "La Diabla" in the end needs to be properly enclosed in quotation marks. This sentence and the following sentence regarding the Hot Latin songs charting can be merged without mentioning all of the released singles, such as "Six singles were released from the album, four of which, "You", "Promise", "Mi Santa", and "La Diabla", reached number one on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the U.S." or something similar. The Billboard Hot Latin Songs mentioning in the existing sentence needs italicising on Billboard and linking for Hot Latin Songs.
 * " an urban/bachata infused band" - I'm not sure if the usage of slash is appropriate in a normal sentence.
 * Erick (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think specific links to Allmusic's page on Santos would be more appreciated than the overview link --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 7 -""Song Lyrics Translated: "La Diabla" by Romeo Santos". mun2. NBCUniversal. Retrieved January 4, 2012." - Doesn't point to a page mentioning the song
 * I will mention more detailed issues later, but these are two things that stand out- 1) The composition section in no way should include commercial performance, which the Singles section does. Hence I see no point in including it there, instead consider moving it to the Release section. Moreover, I just noticed there isn't one. My suggestion would be that there is a "Release and promotion" section, which includes the subsections "Singles" and "Tour". 2) Since this is a FA nomination, why not add the trans_title= parameter to the Spanish sources citations? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For your first point, I'm not understanding since I'm not seeing any commercial performance on that section. I have addressed your second point. Erick (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Commercial performance in the sense that there are a lot of lines regarding the chart performance of the singles on the Hot latin songs etc. I think it is in no way related to composition, hence my suggestion regarding the changes in the section headers of this article, which in my opinion are not the best as of now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that. Yeah I forgot to amend the section heading after taking WikiRedactor's suggestion. Fixed.
 * I will mention more detailed issues later, but these are two things that stand out- 1) The composition section in no way should include commercial performance, which the Singles section does. Hence I see no point in including it there, instead consider moving it to the Release section. Moreover, I just noticed there isn't one. My suggestion would be that there is a "Release and promotion" section, which includes the subsections "Singles" and "Tour". 2) Since this is a FA nomination, why not add the trans_title= parameter to the Spanish sources citations? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For your first point, I'm not understanding since I'm not seeing any commercial performance on that section. I have addressed your second point. Erick (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Commercial performance in the sense that there are a lot of lines regarding the chart performance of the singles on the Hot latin songs etc. I think it is in no way related to composition, hence my suggestion regarding the changes in the section headers of this article, which in my opinion are not the best as of now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that. Yeah I forgot to amend the section heading after taking WikiRedactor's suggestion. Fixed.


 * Three sound samples seem very excessive, considering the fact that there are specific articles for the three songs. Why not include a sound sample of only that one song which defines or is the most prominent example of the main bachata sound of the album? Even two sound samples will be fine --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed "Mi Santa". I'll keep the other two since they're mentioned several times in the article. Erick (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a part of the review but I suggest not using the ✅ template since it increases the page load time, and its usage is also discouraged at the nominations page under the Supporting and Objecting guidelines. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is text-only unlike ✅, which is allowed. ;) Erick (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clever, you are --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs and Billboard Tropical Songs charts" - I'm sure they did, but the supporting refs only mention number one as their peak, not their debuts. Use this Billboard source, which also mentions some new kind of record.
 * "making it the second-most number one singles from an album" - This needs rephrasing since this is not grammatically correct at all.
 * Well the second sentence after that has a reference to that so I rearranged and cleaned it up.
 * "Only Enrique Iglesias - Enrique who? Is he an American recording artist or a dancer?
 * One thing I can easily notice is that the citation styles are lacking a lot. Some are missing dates, some contain publishers that should not be italicised. Please do a thorough check-up the citations. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you take another look and see if I missed any else on the references. Erick (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reviewer below seems to have covered that point. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reviewer below seems to have covered that point. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * " By May 2012, the tour ranked at number five on the Top 20 Concert Tours grossing over US$ 749,885 in the country according to Pollstar" - Consider mentioning that this data was collected from only North American dates --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here since it mentions the country.
 * It looks fine now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The reviews can simply be combined to form one paragraph instead of assigning different paragraphs for each review. Two paragraphs- one for the critical reviews, the second one for the awards/nominations.
 * It seems it won the awards at the 20th BLMA that it had previously been nominated for at the 19th BLMA. So instead of writing out the categories in full why don't you just use a word like "aforementioned" or something
 * I suggest doing a spot check yourself first before another editor does that so less problems are found. Double check that the charts etc are supported by the refs, sometimes we add things that seem right at that time and later turn out to be wrong
 * Also please find a replacement or an archived version of the Mexican Chart since I know for sure that Hung Medien site is down. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay some other user fixed this
 * I think I am happy with the developments and since I know these comments will be addressed soon I don't see why I shouldn't support the promotion of this article --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything else. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article! Erick (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problems! I have checked the updates and everything looks fine! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Erick (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from WikiRedactor
 * You might want to consider renaming "Music and lyrics" as "Composition", as this appears to be a standard across album articles.
 * I believe that "Commercial reception" should be separated into the headings "Commercial performance" for the album itself and "Singles" for just the songs. This is the only instance where I've seen them under the same heading as subheads.
 * Since the "Accolades" section isn't that large to begin with, I think it would fit nicely as a subhead under "Critical reception".
 * With these revisions, I think that the headings should be reordered as "Background", "Composition", "Singles", "Promotion", "Critical reception", "Commercial performance", and so on.
 * In "Credits and personnel", I'd recommend replacing the ";-" you're currently using with " – ".
 * I'd also like to see the dates written out instead of in number form as they currently are.
 * With these revisions, I think that the headings should be reordered as "Background", "Composition", "Singles", "Promotion", "Critical reception", "Commercial performance", and so on.
 * In "Credits and personnel", I'd recommend replacing the ";-" you're currently using with " – ".
 * I'd also like to see the dates written out instead of in number form as they currently are.
 * I'd also like to see the dates written out instead of in number form as they currently are.
 * I'd also like to see the dates written out instead of in number form as they currently are.
 * Support, good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from AJona1992
 * Shouldn't flamenco music be linked in the lead? It isn't mentioned in the infobox


 * Any update on the units the album sold?
 * Funny, I was just about to say no, but today, Billboard just posted the latest sales figures and another editor just updated it.


 * Any reason why the music charts are not linked in the lead?
 * What do you mean? They are linked.
 * Repetitive use of "the album" in the lead and in the article body (e.g., "The album experiments", "The album was", "Recording for the album", "The album earned", "released from the album")
 * Repetitive use of "the song" and "song" in the article body (e.g., "The songs were recorded", "The first song", "a bachata song", "The third song", "bilingual bachata song", "preceding the song", "is a bilingual bachata song", "first song written", "a hip hop song", "writing the song")
 * The number one debut fact about Santos being the 18th artist to do so needs a bit of more information: 18th of that year, overall in the charts history, etc?
 * More repetitive use of "the song" in the singles section.
 * Mixture use of dates ("January 24, 2012" vs. "March 19")
 * The sentence that begins with "It was also recognized as" (critical reception) is missing a word.


 * Ref#1, Ref#10, Ref#80 Allmusic doesn't need to be italicized


 * Ref#2 11 ---> 2011


 * Ref#15 MTV doesn't need to be italicized


 * Ref#21, Ref#50 needs Spanish template


 * Ref#28 isn't the publisher Apple Inc.?


 * Ref#33 not sure why WNBC is italicized


 * Ref#34 and Ref#35 one has a publisher and the other doesn't


 * Ref#36, Ref#37, Ref#39, Ref#41 newspaper needs to be italicized, publisher?


 * Compare Ref#60 and Ref#61 (same goes for Ref#62)


 * Those are my comments, I'll give it another read after you finished these concerns. Best, jona  talk to me  18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look now and see. Erick (talk)

Closing comment -- I didn't see a media review from anyone earlier but based on my own check just now the licensing/FURs appear unproblematic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.