Jump to content

Talk:Besitos/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992: I started review. Comments will be below. Review within 2023 GAN Backlog Drives. Eurohunter (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sammi Brie

[edit]

Wanted to check the ProQuest refs on this one since I did Ya Ves. The reference titled "Verónica Castro, Selena Quintanilla and the Unforgettable Moment they lived together on television" is indeed a translation. The correct ProQuest ID for it is 2735656192, and the source for it is [1] from El Debate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and production

[edit]
  1. "1981 recession in Texas" - article is about Early 1980s recession in the United States so it could be described more precisely. Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "allowing A. B. to stay" - I think "Quintanilla" should be used instead. Same for the other places where "A. B." was used. Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer, her brother, and her father are all Quintanilla and are named in this article. Do you still want me to just say Quintanilla moving forward? – jona ✉ 19:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music, lyrics, and reception

[edit]
  1. "Following the release of the show, "Besitos" entered the US Billboard Latin Digital Song Sales chart at number 19, on the tracking week of December 16, 2020." - it spent just one week on chart? Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. Duration of song not mentioned in text. Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I made some minor fixes. Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is some redirects in references. Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Replace parameter "Work" or "Publisher" with "Website" in references. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @AJona1992: Looks like I missed adding that some references has no links to archived versions and I have been waiting for it to be fixed without notification. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: adding archives to references is not part of the WP:GA criteria. Please do not impose your own criteria in the review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Femke said. It's useful to point out additional ways an article can be improved, as long as you clearly state "Not a WP:GACR, but I suggest ...." and you can't hold that against a pass/fail decision. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOVED
This review will be continued at Talk:Besitos/GA2.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picking up GA review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


AJona1992, I'm going to pick up the rest of the review. First I'll check off everything that RoySmith & Eurohunter have looked at. Then, I'll check the rest of the criteria starting with sources and image licenses. Let me know if you want input on anything specific, and thank you for your patience, Rjjiii (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Reference spot check

[edit]

Checking this version for copying, original research, and verification: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Besitos&oldid=1174400892

  • [5]: Rodriguez (1995) verifies most of the cited content just from the quote. I have a question regarding the quote in the citation. I don't have access to the newspaper article and am wondering if the quote is intended to verify all of the article's content? I don't see it verifying "Selena y Los Dinos was impressed with their performance" or "A. B. pleaded with Abraham"; is that verified elsewhere in the article?
  • [10]: Huston-Crespo (2022) verifies the content.
  • [14]: Anon. (2022) says "en 1992" but the article says "in October 1993".
  • [16]: Villaseñor (2021) mostly verifies the content and the quote is attributed. Why is it translated as "charisma, genuineness and talent" rather than "charisma, brilliance and talent" or "charisma, greatness and talent". My Spanish is not great so "genuineness" may be correct.
  • [17]: Anon. (2005) verifies the content in the final paragraph.
  • [23a]: Bustios (2020) mostly verifies the content. How does it support "where it stayed for one week." though, if the article is from December 16?
  • [23b]: Bustios (2020) Again this mostly verifies the content, but why "peak" when the source says debut: "“Besitos” (debut)".

I don't see any copying issue or OR. I've noted small issues with sources checked above. WP:EARWIG finds no problems with any online, English source. Could you post a brief quote for any two of the Quintanilla (2002) citations? I see it's used a lot but don't have access to it. Rjjiii (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

No other media to check, Rjjiii (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV

[edit]

Mostly neutral, but I have an issue with this section:

When Selena failed to show up for a recording session, A. B. became upset and confronted her about it. Selena explained that she had been working tirelessly to develop the band's aesthetic for the album, hoping that it would attract attention from prospective buyers. This led to a disagreement between the two regarding their respective priorities. Selena made amends by reassuring A. B. that she would quickly record "Besitos" to make time to visit a fabric store before it closed. She achieved this by rapidly singing the song from its original downtempo version. A. B. appreciated this new approach and instructed keyboardist Vela (Hunter Reese Peña) to develop a faster tempo inspired by Selena's interpretation of the song.

I think that all of this is describing the Netflix show (stop me if I'm wrong) and introduces the problem that the charactes in the show (A.B. & Selena, noted here) are based on the real life people discussed in the article. It's not 100% clear if a line like "Selena made amends by reassuring A. B. that she would quickly record "Besitos" to make time to visit a fabric store" is about Selena the artist or Selena the character depicting the artist. There are many ways to make this more clear, so I don't want to be prescriptive and come off telling you how to do it. The two solutions that jump out to me are condensing the Netflix synopsis down to make it clear that it's a synopsis of the episode and optionally if the sources are available to discuss the incident in the background section. Rjjiii (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Rjjiii @AJona1992 I think what should happen here from a process point of view is that I close this as an abandoned review per WP:GAN/I#N4a. Then you can start a new review under /GA2 and just copy-paste your existing review into there. That'll keep the bookkeeping clean, i.e. who owns the review and who gets credit for it. Please acknowledge that you've seen this (and have no objections) and then I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. Thanks for explaining beforehand. I think the bot will drop the not-passed template on AJona1992's talk page as part of that process, which could be confusing. {{Ping}} me, when you do so, and I'll copy & paste this to a new review to continue there. No objections, Rjjiii (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii done. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I've archived my comments above, copied the review, and notified the nominator. Rjjiii (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besitos/GA1&oldid=1186508403"