Wikipedia:Peer review/Ones (album)/archive1

Ones (album)


This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to bring it to FA status in the near future.

Thanks, jona   (talk)   00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neuroxic
✅ Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

General:
 * Song titles in languages other than English should be marked using the lang template, see the MOS entry.


 * You're using the  date format, hence it would be wise to add the dmy template.

Lead Section
 * * There is a a band called The Ones and a tv show episode of the same name; there should be appropriate disambiguation. Perhaps use the about template.


 * * In the first sentence, you probably don't need to include "in Spanish-speaking countries", see MOS:FORLANG


 * * In the first sentence, the original release information could probably be taken out and bundled into the second sentence.
 * * The lines below are overly specific to be in the opening paragraph. WP:LEADPARAGRAPH

"In an interview with Julie Chen, Selena's widower Chris Pérez explained that the recording was released building on the popularity of the 1997 biographical film Selena. Selena's father Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. and sister Suzette Quintanilla told Chen that the album was aimed at Selena's new generation of fans."


 * Six singles in the final line of the lead paragraph may be too many, but this is open to interpretation.
 * * The first line of the second paragraph could be more precise. It doesn't say that the tracks used to create "Con Tanto Amor Medley" came from the album in question.


 * In the same line "Amor Prohibido" isn't wikilinked, even though it is later in the article.
 * It is wikilink in the previous paragraph about the six singles from the album.


 * * I think "music critics" is common enough that it doesn't need to be wikilinked.

"The album also received a mixed reception, with Jon O'Brien of AllMusic noting that the record label ignored Selena's self-titled debut album from the track listing on Ones."
 * * The line below contains information that is too specific. Such a comment about Ones ignoring a previous album by Selena in the lead section would be appropriate if it was among the general consensus by critics, but this hasn't been mentioned in the reception section of the article.


 * This is to avoid the article from having a WP:POV issue, although the comment is not consensual from music critics, it does show that I chose to show what a reviewer deemed inexcusable instead of listing a more positive review (such as the one from AllMusic).


 * * The last line could probably be split into two, and avoid repeating the word "peaked" in such a short time.

Background and release
 * The words "'Ones" and "Selena's" are used too often. The article is about the album, for which she was the artist, so feel free to use "the album" and "her".


 * * biopic about Selena's life is not an appropriate link. The reader would need to click on it to understand that it is referring to a film called Selena. See the last dot point at WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * It's still unclear, perhaps include the word film somewhere in it. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still unclear, perhaps include the word film somewhere in it. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph, "The recording" is slightly ambiguous, it may as well be replaced with "The album"
 * At FAC, they discourage the continuous use of "the album" they prefer that music editors change this up. jona   (talk)   23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but (i) you haven't used "the album" in the previous paragraph at all, (ii) a instance of repetition is better than an instance of ambiguity. The first requirement of GA articles is that "The prose is clear and concise". Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Billboard citation is sufficient for the first line of the second paragraph, even if the text in the scan is hard to read.
 * Can you elaborate on this, I don't understand what you want me to do.
 * It was just a comment, some may struggle to read the scan, but they could always find an actual copy of document to chase the citation up that way. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * * I don't think all the other albums in the compilation need to be named. The paragraph is, after all, about Ones, not Selena: 20 Years of Music.

* Songs
 * There is little structure here. (I can see that the tracks are roughly? listed in chronological order, but at a glance this is not obvious.) Given the nature of the section (information about the songs on a greatest-hits album), I understand that it may not be as easy to structure as other album articles, but this is no excuse for listing a series of facts about the songs.
 * The songs are chronicled from their appearance in Selena's musical career (spanning from 1990 to 1995), since Ones is a collection of her "hits" from the start of her career. This was modeled by GA greatest hits album Number 1's.

""I Could Fall in Love" and "Dreaming of You" are the only English-language tracks on Ones, and are her most recognizable recordings to American music fans. Both tracks were taken from her crossover attempt, Dreaming of You (1995), which was released posthumously."
 * This said, some lines are salvageable and suitable. For example the lines below flow well together, and are not just facts about how high the songs climbed on various charts.


 * The line "The song was acclaimed by music critics [list of critics who gave acclaim]" is not suitable. It has too much detail for a single song in this section.


 * Once again, the link title track is not suitable. I am finding it hard to believe that formatting like this actually passed a Good Article review.
 * For music editors, it is a common practice to use title track, titular track, or the album's song of the same name, to avoid repeating both words in one sentence, which again is discouraged by FAC reviewers. jona   (talk)   23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but you have not just used the words "title track" here – you've used an ambiguous link (one might assume this link is leading to an article called "title track". When you rewrite this section you could eliminate this by writing "The title track of the same name sold..." Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

* Reception and chart performance
 * The first line is not suitable. It should be a summary of how the album was received and/or how it did on the charts commercially. Jumping straight into someone's view on how great the album is errs towards violating WP:POV.


 * Again, the information is all over the place. Normally in reception sections nominations for album of the year and such are put near the end or last, certainly not in the middle. It is also bizarre that there are no sales figures.
 * There were sales figures for the album, however, these sources were deadlinks and I couldn't find them since Google removed all archived news articles if its older than four-five years. jona   (talk)   23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, they don't have to be included for GA status. Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Track Listing
 * This appears to be fine.

Album credits
 * The section title is not standard. Usually "Personnel" is used. Examples: ...And Justice for All, Rumours, Odyssey Number Five.

Charts and certifications
 * The Gold Certification citation is not suitable; the reader should not be required to search terms in order to obtain it.
 * All FA album articles has the same link, the website will not automatically have the album/song's in question certifications without a search. jona   (talk)   23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, several FA such as Rumours and Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 are like this. It's sufficient if no alternatives are available. It doesn't stop it feeling bizarre though.

Concluding remarks

The article needs a substantial amount of work (nearly a complete rewrite) to bring to FA status. Although the article is currently listed as a GA, it is not of this quality. It does not satisfy the following GA criteria :
 * Well-written
 * Broad in its coverage
 * Illustrated by images

Except for the last point, one need only look in my above comments for examples of the article not meeting the other criteria.

I propose the article's Good status be removed, but of course need a second opinion.


 * Thanks for your review, I did find some comments that were against what music editors do to get the article to FA. Other comments will be addressed within two days. Thanks again, jona [[User talk:AJona1992|

(talk) ]] 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of effort to promote an article to FA status. My review indicates that it has been a while since you read the MOS. It is no easy task, but be aware that if you submit an article for FA status, your prose will, among other things, be assessed against this. While not all users who review GA articles have read it, (but really, they should) don't be under any illusions when you nominate it for FA status. These reviewers know the MOS of style back to front, and even the slightest discrepancies will be noted. Before you send it off to them, check your article against the relevant sections of the MOS yourself, or you risk getting an instant fail. Neuroxic (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi it's been more than two days since you said you would clean up the article, but no changes have been made yet. I cannot allow the article to be listed as GA class while you work on it indefinitely, so I'll give you another week. For your convenience, I've marked my comments that need to be addressed in order for it to maintain GA status with an asterisk (*) above. (If I've put one before a section name fix all issues in it.) Please address these or I'll have to delist the article. Obviously, if you don't consider this fair tell me and I'll send the article to community reassessment. Neuroxic (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fixed most of the issues you raised during your review. I also replied to several others that I have an issue with or need further information before I began your request. Best, jona   (talk)   23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job on fixing it up! Although I still have niggles about some things (such as the second paragraph from the songs section, the biopic wikilink), I'm okay with it being listed an GA status. It's in a far better shape now than it was few weeks ago. The structure and flow of many paragraphs have been improved, and smaller jarring things like some wikilinks and a non-standard heading are better. I'll say it again, be aware of the MOS before you submit it to FA, but regardless best wishes for the future. Neuroxic (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)