Wikipedia:Peer review/I Could Fall in Love/archive3

I Could Fall in Love
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because...I would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, jona   (talk)   01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per our Peer review/Request removal policy, the bot closes this due to inactivity after 14 days and a second time after a month. This has clearly passed a month, so I'm compelled to close it. Have you tried the PR instructions "Waiting for a review"? volunteer's list, or quid pro quo? If still there's no response, I say you better take it for FAR. There is no sense in waiting any longer. I'm willing to give it five more days. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So because a review has not been made you want to archive it? So what's the PR project about then, just archiving articles and not giving comments? (at that rate, only 2-5 out of 100 articles at PR would actually have its goal of at least a comment) I don't want to WP:SPAM editors who may or may not be actively involved in the PR process. I don't mind patiently waiting for someone who can provide helpful comments to improve this article. I don't want to take the article to FAC, especially if I am positive that it may result in a speedy oppose because it has happened before. Best, jona   (talk)   21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I want this to get reviewed as much as every other ones I see get closed without any comments. So, rather than keeping this open hoping that someone will eventually come seems seems harmless (though less likely) but there's also the removal policy. What you're doing here has got me thinking about it and I'll raise this issue with the others at Talk:Peer review.
 * But I still prefer actively trying to get someone to participate rather than wait it out. You've not answered my question QPQ above, so I'm going to assume you don't want to? Okay, so let's try the other options then, tell me the current condition of the article. You've said it failed FAR, so I assume those issues brought up there are resolved? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do want it to be reviewed then you wouldn't say "it has five days until I close it". I'll take your advice and ask someone. This article has yet been nominated at FAC yet, I was talking about a previous incident where I felt an article was ready (with no PR comments) and it was speedy closed from a reviewer; I don't want that to happen again. jona   (talk)   22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall review this. Give me a day or 2. Fremantle99 (talk tome) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you still going to review this article? Best, jona   (talk)   22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Just have less time than I thought. Aneditor (talk tome) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, just wanted to know. Thanks, jona   (talk)   23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver
First off, I like the quality of the prose. It's generally well-written and engaging, but I'll list a few minor nitpicks below.
 * Lead
 * According to OC Weekly, BuzzFeed, and Latina magazine, "I Could Fall in Love" was one of the best songs recorded by Selena in her musical career.
 * Maybe it's just me, but "one of the best songs" seems kinda ambiguous. Why is it so good?
 * The general consensus is that they favored its musical composition and the singer's vocals in the song as their determination of the song being one of her best. I've added this information onto the article. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The track was not released as a commercial single in the United States, where it was feared that it might sell more copies than the album itself.
 * It's not clear why this would be a bad thing.
 * No information is given about the decision to not commercially release it in the US; just the fear of it selling more than the album was enough to have one of the head of EMI Records uneven about the possibility. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It became the most played song in Kansas City, Miami, and Boston and the second most played in Los Angeles.
 * You employ a serial of Oxford comma before and Boston, but it looks like it's been omitted elsewhere; e.g., soul, pop and soft rock influences. They are neither required nor forbidden, but usage should be made consistent throughout the article.
 * I also think that most played needs a hyphen, but I admit that I might be wrong about that.
 * ✅. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Background and release
 * Selena was murdered in Corpus Christi, Texas, by her friend and former employee
 * Was she really a current friend but a former employee?
 * At the time of her death, Selena still considered her a friend and only believed that Saldivar was stealing from her about two weeks prior to the murder. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  An editor from the Arizona Daily Star wrote that "‍ '​I Could Fall in Love' ... seemed aimed more towards adult contemporary airplay than the R&B or Top-40 markets where Gloria Estefan scored well".[16]
 * I recommend paraphrasing this quote, as it does not seem creative enough to require a direct quote.
 * ✅. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Composition and lyrics
 * which makes use of an electronic piano, a violin, and a flute in the background.
 * Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in a period.
 * ✅. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The first couple of sentences are a little choppy. Try to rework them with an improved flow.
 * Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad".[24], An editor from the Contra Costa Times called the song a "jazzy ballad".[27], and Brian Galindo of BuzzFeed called the track a "melancholy ballad"
 * Consider condensing theses points and losing the quotes.
 * I can't come up of a good direction for these, care to help out? jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would simply state that the song has been described as a ballad, with no quotes, then use one or two cites after. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * emotional vulnerability and emotionally vulnerable narrator
 * This is kinda repetitive, so consider condensing as above.
 * I removed the first instance of the word. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When asked what the "secret" was about, Saldivar responded that she won't discuss the matter at the time.[36]
 * This last part is a bit confusing, and I wonder if it's really all that necessary.
 * Removed. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * Is there any particular reason why you have "reviews" and "accolades" under the same header?
 * Fixed. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * thought the song had "a whiff of" Celine Dion.[38]
 * I would paraphrase "a whiff of".
 * It is the reviewers opinion and not mine. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph under reviews does not flow, but rather reads as a list of assorted comments. Try to rework so that the sentences naturally follow and flow.
 * I believed I fixed that problem. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * More recently, Elizabeth Rodriguez Kessler and Anne Perrin wrote in their 2007 book
 * Drop the "more recently" bit as unneeded and redundant with mentioning the year.
 * ✅. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is About.com reliable?
 * Depending on the editor and their expertise, yes. The editor has a masters degree in folklore/mythology with a specialization in ethnic music and dance. This is according to her About.com profile. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But is About.com a reliable website? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the About.com source. jona   (talk)   19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * number 4 on the Hot Latin Tracks chart on 1 July 1995[62][63] and peaked at number 2
 * I think "4" and "2" ought to be written out in prose, as with any number under 10.
 * ✅. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Chart performance material reads like a list, and I wonder if this would be better represented in chart form.
 * It is a standard practice for song articles. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Music video
 * the music video accompanying the song
 * This is a little rough; maybe "the song's accompanying music video"
 * ✅ jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Cultural impact
 * "I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations,[22][87][88] a fact that was well received by critics.[87][89]
 * For one, this seems like citation overkill, and for another, I'm confused why it's radio play was well received?
 * John Lannert (who is a regular on Billboard for Latin music charts) noticed how music shops were "eager for a followup" after the song scored in the top five in several radio formats; which is a nice exposure for Latin artists who rarely competes with pop music artists. Mario Tarradell's comment is forgotten and I can't access it on google since they removed all archived newspapers dating back to the past five years. Tarradell has written articles about Latin music for The Dallas Morning News and I believe he shared the same excitement that Lannert expressed about the success of the song by a Latin artist in the American mainstream. jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that this section could use a thorough trimming and maybe even a complete removal in favor of a one-sentence summary, as it's one of the more developed ones in the article, but lends little in the way of understand about the actual song. Having said that, I've never written or significantly contributed to a music article, so maybe this is standard practice. If so, please disregard. With the exception of some jarring list-like paragraphs, this is an excellent article that needs a little more polishing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Covers
 * Conclusion
 * I believe I have all issues you have raised. Thank you for reviewing this article! Best,  jona   (talk)   19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)