This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
I see a release date, but not place in the correct section of the boyd of the article.
The same goes for recording date.
If is a promo single then the infobox is different. Change "Promotional single" in the label "type" and remove "promo single". I'm starting to see sources claiming its an official single, which one?
first two sentences → "Dame" (English: "Give Me") is a song by Mexican recording artist Luis Miguel recorded at the Record Plant studio in Los Angeles, California, from his eleventh studio album Nada Es Igual... It was written by Alejandro Lerner and Ignacio "Kiko" Cibrian, its production was handled by the latter along with Miguel. It was released to radio stations as the lead single from the album on 15 July 1996. It incorporates R&B and hip-hop influences.
Video of the Year → needs ceremony, year.
"It received mixed reactions from music critics who felt that the track sounded too similar to his previous pop recordings." → please elaborate
Needs at least two paragraphs once it has more information
This should start "Dame received mixed/rave/good/bad/terrible...and so on...reviews from music critics"
I can't acess two reviews, but it says "Fernando Gonzalez of the Contra Costa Times called "Dame" a "Janet Jackson"-lite funk". So the dong should also be funk? or funk influenced?
Try two find two links that don't require subscription, perhaps on archive.web, archive.is or webarchive.
"Dame" was recognized at the 1998 BMI Latin Awards as one of the best performing songs of the year. → should be in a different paragraph
"Dame" and its music video was included on Miguel's compilation album Grandes Éxitos (2005). → wrong section
It was included on the set list for his Tour America 1996, Romances Tour, and Amarte Es Un Placer Tour. → wrong section, once again, also it should be in the lead
The tours should have the years they run between brackets.
The latter tour is missing a source.
While there's no denying the catchiness of his radio-ready, R&B-lite fare – "Si Te Vas", "Dame", "Todo Por Su Amor" – there are no distinguishing licks to separate these songs from past hits such as "Suave", Sera Que No Me Amas" and "Oro de Ley" → Use tour own words along with parts of the quote
"among the best tracks on the album" → use your own words
Be consistent. You use work and publisher for AllMusic reference; however with Chicago Tribune you only use work. Either you have both or remove all the publishers.
After careful reading and seeing what the article is lacking. I can't pass it even with amends I recommended, its just nowhere near there. It needs to be more developed (information lacking in most sections or its too short). Not only that but its rated as stub, so it can't be GA material, shouldn't even be nominated in first place. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: I rated it a stub because that's what it was before I expanded the article. Someone else has to reassess the article, it's definitely not a stub. I'm only limited to the information I can access. Erick (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: "Some articles just can't be GA, its not your fault or anyone else." That's not true. I've written plenty of articles about songs that got even less coverage and they still passed GA. Broad in its coverage is based on not only how much information is available, but how much attention it got by reviewers. Edit: Here's what the "broad in coverage" says: " The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Erick (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: No you haven't. I have seen your GA's and that's not true, they have lots/tons of coverage. I believe you can find more formation about the song, look at the album reviews they usually talk about the singles. Btw, a tip here: next time, put it at least to start class. You know for a fact that stubs can't be GA's. But please reassess the article, I have no problems with that whatsoever. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: I did look at the album reviews. I also searched through online newspaper archives as well. That's why I said I'm limited to whatever I can access. I'm sorry, but I did not find your review to be very helpful, so I'm re-nominating it so that someone else can take a look. Erick (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Its quite helpful I gave you some strong points to work on, you are just but hurt. I thought you were going to reassess it, you would get a response sooner and if you believed I made a mistake. Good luck then! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Regardless of what I think, I do appreciate you taking your time to review this article. That said, calling someone "but hurt" is not a professional thing to say no matter how the nominator may react. Until next time, Erick (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "15 July 1996" seems unusual for encyclopedic prose but is acceptable per MOS:DATEVAR so that's okay.
The second-to-last sentence under "music video" places a period inside quotation marks, which is different than the use throughout the rest of the article, however, from looking at the original quote it appears it is accurately quoting the full stop from the source.
The lede complies with WP:LEDE and represents an accurate summary of the main points of the article.
no other grammar, spelling, or structural problems observed; article is clear and layout is acceptable
There were some other issues noted in the previous GA-review which have been addressed.
The article is broad in coverage while remaining focused on the topic and addressing all reasonable aspects expected of a song article. A cursory search I conducted for other significant information on this topic turned-up empty-handed.