Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Hall of Fame/archive2


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

Latin Grammy Hall of Fame

 * Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list based on the successful nomination of the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. , who has worked on many Grammy-related lists, provided a quick review and gave me the encouragement to nominate this list. The first nomination failed to due to a lack of activity. Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like just to note that User:AJona1992 supported this list's promotion in the first FLC round. Thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I, too, support this list's promotion assuming concerns by all other editors are resolved. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Erick (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I still do support this nomination, I see no issues for its second run here at FLC. – jona  ✉ 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47


 * You use the word "recording" several times in the lead, and I would recommend changing one or two of these instances for the sack of variety.
 * Two of the instances are for the proper noun "The Latin Recording Academy" and a quote ("early recordings of lasting"). For the third instance, I couldn't think of another word for "recording" so I used "albums and singles". I hope that's alright with you.
 * No worries, I completely understand. Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a fan of the way that the Latin Grammy Awards information is phrased in the first sentence. It cuts off the sentence and separates the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences from the quote describing what it does in terms of the Latin Grammy Hall of Fame. The information about the Academy being behind the Latin Grammy Awards should be kept, but it may be better to revise it as the second sentence of the lead instead.
 * I moved the mentioned of them also being responsible for the Latin Grammy Awards to a separate sentence.


 * Would you need commas around the phrase "such as musicologists and historians"?
 * Added commas.


 * I am not sure what you mean by "selected from all major categories of Latin music". I am primarily confused by this because I am not sure if this part is connection to your reference to the Latin Grammy Awards, in that the songs are selected from the major award categories, or if you are reference selected from different genres/types of music overall? I would recommend making this a little more clear by saying "award categories" or a similar variation if you are referring to the Grammys here.
 * Well this one is tricky because the source doesn't really specify. All it says is "Selections are drawn from all major categories of Latin music, acknowledging the diversity of musical expression for which the Latin Recording Academy has become renowned." My guess is that they mean all genres within the Latin music universe.
 * Makes sense, thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rephrase "The inductions have only occurred six years apart." to "The inductions have each occurred six years apart from one another." or some similar variation as the "only occurred" does not make sense in this context.
 * Done!


 * Why is the information on the sales/commercial performances of Siembra, Eres Tu, and Amor Eterno necessary for this page? This list is about those inducted into the Latin Grammy Hall of Fame, and the information on the commercial performance seems more appropriate for the page on the artist and their work instead of here.
 * I have removed all mentions of commercial performances of recordings.


 * While I will not require it for a support vote, I would highly encourage you to archive your references so you do not lose your hard work in the future.
 * I have checked and ensured that the WayBack Machine has copies for the online sources (physical media like Billboard can be accessed offline as well thankfully).


 * Just as a clarification question, you do have a lot of red links on this page. That is not a bad thing, but red links should only be used when you feel that the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If you believe that all of the red links have potential, that is fine (I do find red links to be helpful for encouraging users to create new pages), but again I just want to draw your attention to this.
 * From my point of view, if the recordings are deemed to be very important by music historians and musicologists, then they are probably notable enough to have an article about them. They all likely made an impact in the Latin music universe in some capacity.

This was a very interesting read! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If you have any questions about my review, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it if you could do a review for my current FLC for the list Alyssa Milano discography, but I understand that it is a busy time of the year, and you have not have the time or interest in doing so. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've replied to each of your comments above. Erick (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support this nomination. Wonderful job with this, and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I echo the previous reviewers, nice job Magiciandude. My review found the following: (1) Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, (2) W3C finds no dead links, (3) the lede is concise, relevant, and compliant with WP:LEDE, (4) I did not locate any (uncorrected) spelling or grammar issues), (5) content that is uncited in infobox is cited in body of article, (6) all claims in table are supported by RS, as is the lede, (7), good categorization, (8) article is stable with only the nom doing substantive recent work on it and just a short discussion on the Talk page. It would be nice to see some more images but I don't have any bright ideas of what could be included. It appears, from my own search, that the LGHOF doesn't have a brand logo, for instance. Anyway, I think this is a short and concise, but very well constructed list and good FLC! LavaBaron (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review: passed. Alright, second time's the charm, promoting! -- Pres N  21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.