Talk:El Concierto/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Phelps (BYU) (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article and have made minor copy editing changes, but the content is well organized and well sourced. I see no reasons why this article cannot become a GA.Phelps (BYU) (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing the article Phelps (BYU). Erick (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-review comment

Given the above comments, I was surprised to find places where the prose did not meet the "clear and concise" portion of the GA criteria, particularly in the Critical reception section. In general, the section seems to present praise about various facets of the album without context. It's also not clear how much of the album was mariachi and how much (if any) not, given the backing band. That should have been explained elsewhere, and I think the album fails the "broadness" criterion of the GA criteria without more in the way of information. Some specifics:

praising the inclusion of the mariachi performances calling it a "good introduction to the singer, since it features his biggest hits and he gives a flashy, impassioned performance." I'm not sure how the two halves of this go together.
Chito de la Torre wrote for La Prensa de San Antonio praised the album: this is clearly problematic
Rene Carbrera of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times said the album's productions "essentially takes listeners through one of Miguel's dynamic performances": I don't see how "album's productions" fits with the quote.
Were there no less-than-favorable reviews? No complaints at all?

On another matter entirely, the reviewer's edits appear to be contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style in the matter of logical quotation marks, and while Wikipedia takes no position on the serial comma, an article should be allowed to retain whichever version it is initially written with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that section of the MOS to my attention. I am still familiarizing myself with the Wikipedia MOS and appreciate your feedback. I don't feel like the mentions of "praise" in the sections quoted above were a problem, but do see how there could be more balance by including negative reviews. If the nominator, Erick, is able to augment the previous information with other critics opinions I see how that could help the article follow the "broadness" criteria more closely. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: The reviews that are listed are the only finds I could find online and obtain from WP:RX. There wasn't anything negative mentioned on those reviews or I would've already included them as I've done in all the other articles about albums I've worked on. Regarding the mariachi tracks, I already listed the three songs that were mariachi/ranchera, though in fairness I suppose I could've mentioned it was the live covers of José Alfredo Jiménez. I've modeled this article from Live from Paris (Shakira album). Erick (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]