Wikipedia:Peer review/Techno Cumbia/archive1

Techno Cumbia
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I know that I only can have four (4) open reviews, so this my last one, for now lolz.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would also like this song to be a GA

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Lead
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article. The lead for this article is too long.  An article of this length should have a two to three paragraph lead.  I haven't read through the entire article yet but my guess is that you are either bringing up subjects in the lead that arent' covered in the article or you are going into too much detail in the lead.
 * There are parts of the lead that are too detailed:
 * The information about the influences can be trimmed.
 * Quotes in the lead aren't necessary.
 * The recording process could be trimmed down and remove details like backup singers and who did the rap part.
 * These are suggestions more should be trimmed.


 * Abbreviations need to be spelled out, I'm looking at the agencies that certified her song as Gold and Platinum.
 * Is it Brain "Red" Moore or Brian "Red" Moore? I know it says Brain all the way through so if it is that's fine I just wanted to bring it up to make sure.  This is all I can get to right now.  I'll review more as I have time in the next day or so.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its more "overly detailed", sorry about that :/ and its "Brian "Red" Moore" lolz. Thanks for reviewing, AJona1992 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Background
 * Try to avoid using people's first names when discussing that they do. For example: "A.B., later wanted it to be a Cumbia song mixed with Techno."  In this example the name is an abbreviation, which is confusing in itself but also using people's first names gives the article too much of a familiar feel.  Like you're writing a biography.  This isn't a biography, it is an encyclopedia and should sound more formal.  That's my opinion though, I can't point to any guideline for support.
 * Refs should be at the end of sentences, there really isn't a reason to have them floating in the middle of sentences.
 * I've been doing some edits to tighten up the prose. If your final goal for this article is GA then a cursory copy edit should catch all the issues for GAC, but if you do want to pursue FA status then you're going to need a very thorough and nitpicky copy edit.
 * Per WP:LINK link the first mention of the term in the article. I see the cumbia is linked in the Composition section but not in the Background section.  This should be checked throughout.  Don't fall into the trap of overlinking either.  Each term gets linked once in the article and once in the lead.

Composition
 * "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by EMI Music Publishing..." As far as I know you don't need to attribute the publisher in the body of the article.  Do it in the reference though.
 * I'm reading almost verbatim copy from the lead. This is probably why the lead is so long.  The lead should be a summary of the article not a word-for-word copy of text within the article.
 * There are a few grammatical and prose issues with this section, especially the lyric walk-through. A copy edit would fix these.

Live performances
 * Of the three paragraphs in this section the only one that really has to do with the performance of the song is the last one. You give undo weight (IMO) to aspects of her performances that have nothing to do with the song.  For example:
 * What difference does it make if it was the 8th song sung at the Denver concert (seems like unnecessary information)
 * Why does it matter in this article that she didn't sing Ya No in a couple of her concernts.
 * Did she perform it at her final concert at the Calle Ocho Festival? The article is not clear.  If not then her final performance, when it was and how many people attended has no place in this article.
 * Who cares what she wore (as it pertains to this song)? I understand the fascination with what she wore, especially the outfit she was buried in, but that has nothing to do with this song.  Keep your focus on the song not on her final performances, tributes, or anything else related to her life and untimely death.


 * IMO I don't think there's enough information here solely about the song to justify having the section. If you can expand it and talk about some notable performances of the song then perhaps otherwise I say take it out.  I'm reading a lot of little details that seem to be included for sentimentality than because they pertain to the song.  This section is an example.  I know there's a strong temptation to put in stuff about her life and death and it is a tragic story but you have to be impartial here and focus on the song and on details that only pertain to the song.  Does that make sense?

Release
 * Writing is a little rough here.
 * Again please spell out the abbreviations first so that people know what you're referring to, IMO linking isn't enough.
 * What does the sentence about the maid seeing a ghost of Selena singing the song have to do with Critical reception? I'm having a hard time seeing how it applies anywhere in an encyclopedic article but I'm not the one who will give it a quality rating so I'll leave it alone.
 * Were there any critical reviews? I don't remember reading any.  For a song that didn't sell well it's odd that there aren't any criticisms of is out there.
 * "...but lost to "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom" another single that was released from Amor Prohibido." Earlier in the paragraph you state that Bidi Bidi Bom Bom was from Amor Prohibido.  No need to say it again.

Music video
 * Most of the songs mentioned in the first couple of sentences are linked in the previous section. They don't need to be linked again, watch overlinking.
 * "...while casting calls were done simultaneously after the music video for "I'm Getting Used To You" was completed." Not sure what you're trying to say here.  "Simultaneously" means while something else is going on at the same time.  But here "simultaneously" is followed by "after the music video for 'I'm Getting Used To You' was completed", so it doesn't make sense.  Perhaps there's a better word than "simultaneously".
 * There's some unnecessary detail here as well: Like the use of chroma key digital effects and what the back-up dancers were doing. Doesn't seem relevant or noteworthy.

Chart performance
 * I've done a few reviews of songs and usually it's sufficient to say where the song peaked in each of the charts. It isn't necessary to give a breakdown of the movement of the song on the various charts.  The writing gets cumbersome and it drags the article down IMO.

Referencess
 * These look ok, credible and formatted properly.

Overall
 * There are a few issues with this article:
 * Undo weight on things that have nothing to do with the song.
 * Information that is too detailed.
 * The lead is too long and is not really a summary of the article.
 * Writing is rough in places and check spelling throughout.
 * Watch sentimentality, there's a place for it in her biographical article but not here.


 * The article is well on its way, if anything there's too much detail here. Trim it up and you'll be fine at GAC.  That concludes my review please consider reviewing someone else's work to relieve some of the backlog.  If you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I will be fixing the article today. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)