Wikipedia:Peer review/List of best-selling Latin music artists/archive1

List of best-selling Latin music artists


So this list is a long shot. But I'm curious to know if this list has any chance of being FL. I look forward to addressing any issues. I will have this copy-edited by WP:GOCE to make the prose better.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47
I was asked on my talk page to help with this peer review, and although I had initially said that I would be unable to do so, I feel bad for not being able to help, especially since this particularly peer review has been active for so long without any comments and I could understand how that would be very frustrating.


 * There is a decent amount of prose in the "Definitions" section to the point that at first glance, this could look more like an article than a list. This information is important and should be included. You are in a tough spot as you have to clearly handle two very broad things: 1) the standards of inclusion via sales and certifications and 2) the varying definitions of Latin music. My first thought would be to try and put this in the lead, but I am not sure if there is a way to effectively condense all this information there without sacrificing the prose. Has there been a featured list with this level of prose in a section? I am out of practice when it comes to lists so apologies if this is obvious, but it does not look like what I'd view as a traditional list by Wikipedia standards. Hopefully this makes sense, and apologies if it does not. I think this type of list will be tough as it would be the first of its kind in the FL space. The closest I could find are things like List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States (your work I know) and List of best-selling singles of the 1960s in the United Kingdom, but those have the benefit having more clearly defined parameters.
 * Is it acceptable to have a list identify itself as a list in the prose (i.e. The following list of best-selling Latin music artists includes)? I have not seen this in a featured list, but I could just be overlooking something really obvious so apologies if I am.
 * I am uncertain about having a parameter called "Claimed sales". I can understand why you would put such a caveat in place, but I would think this kind of list would have numbers sourced from something official and certain. I have a similar concern with the information presented in the "Artists by reputed sales only" section as I would not think that a list like this should be presented what could likely be fake information even with the caveat that it may be fake. For me, including what could be fake information could potentially put the accuracy of the entire list in doubt.
 * This is more of a smaller comment, but ranchera should be linked on the first instance. I would also be consistent with using either ranchera or rancheras as I see instances of both. I would personally go with ranchera as that sounds more correct to me.

I am struggling with how this information should be structured. It may sound weird or silly, but have you tried reaching out to the FLC coordinators to get their opinion on this list is structured and its appropriateness as a FL? I could just be making a mountain of a molehill, but that's the part that I am stuck on at the moment. I am definitely not the right person when it comes to determining that so apologies in advance, but that seems like one way of moving forward with this and hopefully getting more commentary. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aoba47 Thank you for the review, it was actually quite helpful! I can definitely see how this list could be challenging. What would you suggest for the "claimed sales" parameter be renamed to? I'm drawing a blank on this one. Another question, do you think this list too long? I'm having difficulty deciding between having 10 million or 15 million as the minimum threshold. Also, should the artists without certifications be merged into the main list and just leave the certifications blank? Good idea with the coordinators, I'll go ahead and ping them., , any ideas? Erick (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am glad that I could help. This is an interesting list and I hope that it can become a FL in the future. That is a tough question. I am not sure what the parameter would be renamed to so I would see what other editors have to say on the matter. I am also not sure about the minimum threshold. The best idea I can think is too look at how other best-selling lists on here do that. I am not sure about the certification question to be perfectly honest. Sorry again. I know a lot of these answers are I do not know. I hope that other editors can participate in this peer review in the future to hopefully provide better answers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Length is fine in terms of items- 124 is alright. Each row is kind of tall, though, which makes it feel longer- I've done a tweak that makes it way shorter, but it's fine either way.
 * I think merging the two sections would work as you describe. You could name the sales columns as "Certified sales" and "Reported sales", I think. The note makes it clear why the discrepancy between the columns and what the backing is, so I don't think it needs to be explicit that it's "Certified Latin Recordings (from available markets)". "Reported sales" would then lose any negative connotation of "claimed".
 * I get the concern above about using non-certified sources, but just looking at Gloria Estefan there's a clear disconnect between her certified numbers and reality, such that I wouldn't want the list to only show the certified numbers.
 * The overall structure is acceptable; I personally prefer having a single table rather than multiple chopped up at arbitrary points, but that kind of issue is a consensus between you and reviewers, not something that FLC as a project tries to dictate.
 * Not going to review the prose, other than to say that yes, "this is a list" wording is heavily discouraged, and defining your inclusion criteria in the first sentence before discussing what Latin music even is reads weirdly. -- Pres N  18:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice! From what I gathered from you both, this list isn't as far-fetched as I thought it'd be! I went ahead and put a request to be copy-edited by GOCE. Erick (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)