Talk:Besitos/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(continued from Talk:Besitos/GA1)

Picking up GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
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

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?

I do remember it being in the article, however, because I am in the process of moving, I do not have access to the newspaper right now. I'll remove those statements until I'm settled. – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[10]: Huston-Crespo (2022) verifies the content.
[14]: Anon. (2022) says "en 1992" but the article says "in October 1993".

Done – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

I have changed it to your suggestion, my Spanish is limited as well, I typically use Google Translate. – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[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?

This was suggested by the previous GA reviewer, should I remove it? – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say either remove it or find a source that can more clearly support it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[23b]: Bustios (2020) Again this mostly verifies the content, but why "peak" when the source says debut: "“Besitos” (debut)".

It only charted on the list for a single week so it peaked and debuted, however, Billboard doesn't go back and corrects anything if a song or album leaves the chart, they will if it reenters at a higher peak. – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting it's true. How could someone verify this though from the cited source? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Here's a YouTube link of the spoken liner notes from the album which "Quintanilla (2002)" derives from in case you want to verify the source. – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks/sounds good. 4a is verified early on in the recording. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Besitos - Selena.ogg has an appropriate fair use rationale.

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

NPOV

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]

It's a biographical drama show based on the singer's life and career and is just a synopsis of the episode that dramatizes the recording session of the song in question. I assumed that starting the sentence with "portrayed the creation of "Besitos", with Christian Serratos depicting Selena opposite Gabriel Chavarria as A. B." would have sufficed and avoid confusion, but if that still does not help, I'll go ahead and trim what I can do to try and make it less confusing. – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's giving undue weight to an account of events from what is not a reliable source. I think you disagree, so I'll start a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to get another opinion. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

I took some time to look up what I could. The article comprehensively covers the song using English and Spanish language sources. I like "Astudillo's songwriting debut" in the lead because it's something that I saw multiple sources highlight, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Since the incomplete review at Talk:Besitos/GA1 focused on prose. I've passed those criteria. One suggestion would be to reword this sentence from the lead: "Astudillo's songwriting debut came in the form of "Besitos", a composition in which the lyrics convey a longing for her lover's kisses and a desire to be his source of happiness." Because the writer and singer are different genders the pronouns struck me as confusing. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

@AJona1992: That's it for the review. The article is mostly there. Let me know if you have any questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I have fixed most and left questions on others. Best – jona ✉ 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992 @Rjjiii I'm looking through the oldest GA reviews. This one looks like nothing has happened in 2 weeks and we're waiting for Rjjiii to take the next step. RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After I replying here,[1] I posted to the NPOV notice board for a third opinion.[2] I still think that section is undue. Also still awaiting a clarification or alternate source/wording for the chart information. Thanks for following up RoySmith. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii User:AJona1992 hasn't edited in 3 weeks. May I suggest this be closed as a failed nomination at this point? If they return to editing, they can resubmit for a new review. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and AJona1992: I'll close it on Tuesday if the nominator doesn't respond. That'll be one month. It's been longer than normal, but I see a few multi-week editing breaks in the editor's history. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the patience, RoySmith! I'm going ahead and closing the review as the nominator has been inactive on Wikipedia this past month. AJona1992, you are welcome to renominate at any time in the future if you return. For future editors, I only had 2 small remaining concerns:

Regarding NPOV: the lengthy passage about the fictional portrayal should be trimmed, condensed, or omitted.
Regarding OR: The sources support the language in this version [3] but not the added text "where it stayed for one week".[4] It appears factually correct, but either the source or wording should be changed.

Thanks for working to improve the encyclopedia AJona1992, and hopefully what has kept you away been something fantastic like a new baby, business, or boat, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (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.