Talk:Just Another Day (Jon Secada song)/GA1

GA Review

CLOSED

The article has failed GA review. Spintendo 06:57, 6 August 2023 (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: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I'm Spintendo, and I'll be conducting this review. The Discussion section below is where we'll have most of our interactions. I've divided that section into subsections based on the headers from the article. Please feel free to place "done"-type comments, objections, or counter-proposals in each section for the issues I'll be bringing up there. I see that there's a co-nominator for this GA, so let me take a moment to welcome them as well to this review—please feel free to jump in anywhere you like, it's much appreciated. Without further ado, let's begin! Spintendo 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold I've completed my review of the article and I've submitted suggestions that I feel will garner the article GA status. I've placed the review on hold for 7 days to allow the nominating editors to follow through with the changes or make any objections / suggestions before the article is either promoted or declined. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Regards, Spintendo 04:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) and 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Lede section

is a song recorded by Cuban singer-songwriter Jon Secada for his eponymous debut studio album Jon Secada (1992). Written by Secada and Miguel Morejon, SBK Records released it as the album's lead single in March 1992. I think the information on who wrote the song should be placed in its own sentence. Combining it with the information re: SBK Records does not read well.
The Wikilink for Hook should be changed to Hook (music).
Critics gave a mixed response to "Just Another Day", this should end with a period.
while some critics lauded the song for being catchy and praised Secada's vocal delivery, others compared Secada to other artists and found the singer's vocal performances too dramatic. It's not clear how comparing Secada to other artists would be a negative.
The song's impact on radio, its emotional intensity, and its success in reaching diverse markets was acknowledged and celebrated by various critics. This appears to be a lot of information being ascribed to these critics. It's not clear which critics are to be pegged for these assertions. It would be helpful to see who these critics are, if possible (not to include their names--which can be left out of the lede--but simply to verify that's what they said).
Kevin Layne directed the accompanying music video, which shows Secada utilizing triumphant gestures and containing visual elements that mirror the musical progressions of music videos at that time. I think this information in the lede is too early; it should be just in the body of the article (the part about Secada utilizing triumphant gestures). For now, I think that it should just state that the music video was directed by so and so.
Layne won Best Director at the 1993 Billboard Music Awards. This is ostensibly for Just another day, but it reads a bit obscure. Is this best director of the video? also, I dont see that the Billboard awards has/had a best video director award.
It became the first song to simultaneously reach the top five of the Hot 100 and Adult Contemporary charts and the Hot Latin Songs chart, under the title "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte", since Gloria Estefan's "Don't Wanna Lose You" in 1989. If Gloria's song was the first in 1989, then the claim should be that "It became the second song to simultaneously...."
"Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte" propelled Secada to become an acclaimed singer-songwriter in the 1990s, gaining recognition in Latin America, Europe, and Mexico. It helped opened the doors for him, granting the singer international success, including extensive radio exposure in Mexico. "propelled" should be changed to "marked", i.e., "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte marked the beginning of Secada's acclaim as a singer/songwriter...." The claim about the song opening doors should be deleted. Spintendo 23:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and production

These should probably be split into two different sections: Background and Production.
Jon Secada auditioned for his school's musical adaption of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, discovering his passion for music. He enjoyed the status it brought him, as it began attracting friends, which was what he desired. Secada went on to attend the University of Miami, where he earned a master's degree in Jazz Vocal Performance. While providing backing vocals for various artists, he composed songs for Japanese instrumentalists, Takanaka and Seiko, Venezuelan singer Jose Luis "El Puma" Rodriguez, Mexican vocalist Luis Miguel, and Spanish singer Julio Iglesias. It's not clear how this information relates to the song. This might work in the article on Secada himself, but the song article should focus on the genesis of the song.
In 1987, music producer Emilio Estefan, was given a demo tape of Secada, by Jorge Casas and Ray Ostwald, former classmates of Secada. The paragraph should begin with this statement.
The tape evoked a range of emotions in Emilio, as he believed that Secada has a chance at success. This is not grammatical. What Emilio believed, whether that belief came immediately from hearing the tape, and what the tape had in relation to the song Just Another Day is not known.
In 1988, Secada released a Spanish-language album, while it highlighted his baritone and emotive delivery, it was overlooked The Wikilink for Secada's 1988 Spanish language album would work, if there is one available. Also, overlooked by whom?
Two of the singles Secada wrote, "Coming Out of the Dark" (1991) and "Can't Forget You" (1991), peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Secada provided backing vocals for Gloria during her world tour for the album. Secada aspired to become a soloist, despite Emilio cautioning him that it would require time. Emilio guided Secada in developing his songwriting trajectory,[2] and advised him on refining his abilities. Emilio encouraged him to compose his own music and cultivate a unique sound. He emphasized the importance of working on his appearance and striving to enhance it to the best of his abilities I'm not sure what this has to do with the song. Again, this seems like it might be best placed in the article on Secada himself.
Emilio provided a demo tape of Secada to SBK Records vice president of A&R Nancy Brennan and EMI Records chairman Charles Koppelman, who both enjoyed it This is referenced to Secada (likely "New Day" publication) but there are no page numbers for that source.
Brennan and Koppelman flew from New York City to London to see Secada perform at Wembley Stadium where Gloria introduced him Introduced him to who?
Koppelman expressed an interest in Secada flourishing as a singer capable of being a non-format artist. This is not grammatical.
Emilio found Secada's timing as a soloist auspicious, finding limited musical alternatives to rap and metal at the time Does timing in this instance refer to Secada's musical timing or his timing with regards to signing his contract?
He described Secada as a pop and R&B artist and believed that Secada represented a unique genre that people were yearning for This is worded strangely, as pop and R&B is a type of music and not inherently unique (that would make all categories of music unique, which is not the best way to describe their variety.)
Faced with concerns about a scarcity of original material, Secada sensed the urgency to swiftly demonstrate to record executives his artistic essence. He then contacted Miguel Morejon and the two of them secluded themselves in a period of intense emotional exhilaration and penned several songs Per: MOS:PEACOCK this should be re-written or deleted. The information about Morejon and Secada collaborating to write the song is very important, it just needs to be stripped of puffery (e.g., Secada sensed the urgency to swiftly demonstrate to record executives his artistic essence.)
There was one in particular that ignited the greatest excitement within them, "Just Another Day", which was completed in 30 minutes and was envisioned by both of them as being the album's titular track I would keep everything except "ignited the greatest excitement within them", which is puffery.
Secada felt that Morejon played a pivotal role in his artistic growth and development as a musician. It's not clear how, at this point, Secada reaches this conclusion.
Phil Ramone produce "Just Another Day" and "Angel", and Secada expressed his gratitude for having him produce both tracks This is not grammatical. Ideally, it should just state that Ramone produced these tracks, and leave "gratitude" out of it.
Secada believed that "Just Another Day" serves as a testament to the emotional state he was in during that period of his life, representing a vibrant mixture of various heartfelt sentiments. This needs a page number. I'm not entirely sure this is what he actually said, it seems very vague. Creative outputs are always influenced by emotional states (I don't see how they could not be) So Secada saying this seems like either filler or a poor paraphrase of what was actually said.
The song was recorded at Crescent Moon Is this a recording studio? Where is it located? Is there a Wikilink for it?
Gloria provided backing vocals on "Just Another Day", her first recording of providing backing harmonies for another artist, as well as co-writing the Spanish version of the track, "Otro Día Más Sin Verte". This could be re-worded better ("provided backing vocals on "Just Another Day" ... her first recording of providing backing harmonies") So did she provide vocals or harmonies (is there a difference?) Spintendo 00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

There is a great deal of text in this section that is taken from this Sun-Sentinal source. This needs to be rewritten to comply with WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
Secada felt that Gloria was instrumental for translating the track. Is that because there was no paid translator on staff? In any event, anyone who translates text is, pro rata, "instrumental" in its translation. Saying she was instrumental as translator when she was the translator is just redundant.
There is another instance of the incorrect "Hook" Wikilink in this section.
the track is laced with a seductive Soul II Soul rhythmic cadence I don't dispute the fact that the song does have a rhythmic cadence, but I'm not sure the credit for it (a song written, produced and sung by Latin talent) should go to Soul II Soul (a British musical collective). W/o access to the source used here (listed as Morse 1992, but which is actually a Boston Globe article), its difficult to see what the author's intent was. Update: Listening to the first 5 seconds of the Secada song, I can hear a sample of the beat used by Soul II Soul in their release Keep On Movin. Spintendo 09:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Palm Beach Post called the track, along with "If You Go" and "Angel", as an integration of Secada's Latin rhythms with American pop and R&B tones. This is echoed by Deborah Davis of El Norte, who found the track to be a mixture of R&B with the sound and passion of Latin music. While Raquel Riaño of El Confidencial, called the track a catchy and romantic pop song, María Ivette Vega Calles of El Nuevo Dia called it an "alternative ballad". Stephen Holden of The New York Times lauded Secada's ability to transform a "lovelorn ballad" into an impactful song by infusing it with a driving beat, while his intense vocal performance lent it authenticity and credibility. While Ricard Riccio of St. Petersburg Times lauded the track as an exceptional rejuvenating pop song and commended Emilio's sound production, he criticized Gloria's backing vocals for failing to prevent the overall blandness of the songs on the album. Waterloo Region Record deemed the Spanish version to be an improvement over the English version, applauding Secada's emotive vocals set against an assortment of minor keys and unpredictable melodies. This combination, according to the review, resulted in an almost anthemic [sic] expression of poignant longing. Billboard's Larry Flick praised Gloria's harmonies on "Just Another Day", while finding Secada demonstrating a charismatic presence as a contender for both top 40 and AC radio on the song. Flick called lauded the production as being well-executed that blends a rhythmic slow groove, containing captivating piano melodies, and suitably dramatic vocal performance. Flick finds "Just Another Day" as a great introduction to Secada, noticing his potential for a successful career. Charlie Martin of The Messenger, finds the song's message lacking as it depicts a person who is constantly depressed due to the unpredictable presence of their love interest. Joseph Atilano of Inquirer.net, found the song to boast a lively beat that resembles a dance floor anthem. He found the lyrics to have delivered a poignant impact, particularly resonating with the broken-hearted and lonely. Atilano finds Secada pouring his heart out, expressing his deep emotions for the woman he loves, despite the woman's unrestraint [sic] indifference, leaving him feeling lost and adrift without her love. These reviews, 12 of them by my count, all appear in the Music and lyrics section when they ought to be in the Critical reception section. Spintendo 01:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section

The Spokesman-Review called it "easy yet catchy".[26] Jim Abbott of Orlando Sentinel found it to feature "lilting Latin-flavored flare I think the reception section should begin with its strongest, most well known positive reviews first, followed by lesser known. Negative reception would then follow, in proportion to how thge song is generall viewed today. For example, if there is a 70% favorable view of the song, then 70% of the reviews should be positive while 30% are negative. Please advise on your thoughts about this.
Chuck Campbell of The Knoxville News-Sentinel lauded Secada's vocal delivery on the track as being powerful and restrained, suggesting that Michael Bolton should take note, while also noting that the song's structure is relatively simple. This review appears to fall under the category of a mixed review, in that it has something positive to say but yet ends in a strange negative assertion "the song's structure was relatively simple". I believe that mixed reviews generally have no place in the article, unless something extraordinary was said which can be quoted (as long as its not a mixed message).
While praising "Just Another Day" as a "dynamic radio hit", Ernie Long of The Morning Call urged Secada to reduce the dramatic intensity of his vocal delivery on the tracks. Long expressed concern that the singer's tendency to "belt out every song like it's his last" could be detrimental to him, a tactic that has plagued Rick Astley and Bolton. Again, these are mixed reviews which, because they are "mixed", end up saying and adding nothing to the article. If a person says that they like something but that they would not want to try it ever again, then what is the reader of such a review to surmise from that conclusion? That the item is good, or bad? Because the reviewer who publishes a mixed review has essentially taken a place on the fence, the reader is left there as well, with no better understanding of what the review was meant to accomplish. These types of mixed reviews should be steered away from at the beginning of the critical reception section, and should only be placed towards the end of that section along with other mixed and/or negative reviews.
Suffice it to say, the rest of this section (which contains positive, negative, and mixed reviews scattered amongst the last two paragraphs) ought to be delineated as I've suggested with one or two paragraphs containing positive and one containing negative. Spintendo 01:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion section

given its (Baywatch) combination of action and drama in a cohesive and compact format. it's not known what is meant by compact and cohesive format.
In 2014, Secada appeared in a bilingual promotional advertisement for Wendy's that parodied "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte", which People en Espanol humorously dubbed. Humorously dubbed what? There seems to be a word or a couple of words missing here.
Secada performed "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte" at the 1992 Acapulco Festival in Mexico. The audience enthusiastically encouraged him to return for an encore, during which Secada performed "Just Another Day". The performance garnered positive acclaim as it inspired the audience to stand up and dance. I think it would be best to just mention the performance. Everything else about the "performance garnering positive acclaim as it inspired the audience to stand and dance" is poorly worded. Spintendo 11:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with Holden noting the singer's falsetto range displaying an "unusual strength and staying power". Holden who? I think this is referring to Stephen Holden but I'm not sure, It just has the last name. Also, and it may be a rhetorical question for Holden, but why is Secada's strength "unusual"? Spintendo 01:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance section

There are multiple instances throughout this section where the song and other song's names are placed in quotation marks, instead of in italics.
Latin music chart analysis, John Lannert, called it an "ultrarare chart triple" This should read "Latin music chart analyst John Lannert"
visited Latin radio stations as well as contemporary hit radios and adult contemporary stations This should read "visited Spanish and English language contemporary radio stations"
"Angel" gained Secada recognition as a smooth and versatile pop singer who delivers songs in both English and Spanish. Recognition from whom?
"Just Another Day" ranked at number 15 on Billboard's top Latin and Brazilian songs to have appeared on the Hot 100 in its first 50 years. Not grammatical.
expressing his delight over the positive reception it has received This should be changed to "expressing his delight over the positive reception it received".
He expressed how he wasn't prepared for the song's popularity, saying that he never thought he would reach such heights. This should be changed to "Secada expressed how unprepared he was for the songs popularity, saying he never thought it would reach such heights."
The label aimed to replicate Secada's chart success across different markets by capitalizing on the rising popularity of the Barrio Boyzz. This claim comes out of nowhere. It should be explained with better context or deleted.
Influence by Secada's achievements The word should be influenced, not influence.
Having caught a glimpse of success, he became driven and ambitious, no longer willing to settle for anything less than striving for further achievements. This should be deleted.
Secada expressed his aspiration for every song he writes to transcend into the realm of being a definitive and universally well-received song. He yearns for his compositions to retain a timeless allure, resonating with audiences for decades beyond their initial release. This text should also be deleted in its entirety. Spintendo 15:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos section

Gloria Estefan makes a cameo appearance in the music video. While a music video for "Just Another Day" was produced, a European tour began. In the video, critic Carol Vernallis, describes Secada's arms rising overhead in a triumphant gesture, with the camera tilts upward, synchronizing with a modulation up a whole step, mirrors the musical progression found in "Just Another Day". This entire paragraph has areas where it's not grammatical, where quotation marks are used instead of italics, where strange asides are made in the middle of the paragraph where it's trying to make one point (i.e., describing who's in the video, then stating that a European tour began, then going back to talking about the video) then moving to another point. This section needs a lot of work. Spintendo 15:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References section

There are three entries for Secada as an author in the Works cited section: His New Day book; an article in the Palm Beach Post; and a listing of him as the author for his liner/media notes. These need to be delineated (in the Works cited section), so that we have three Secada's: Secada (2007), Secada (2014), and Secada (1992) just as we have three Secada's in the references section. For references linked to Secada's New Day publication, these must have page numbers. I don't see any thus far for that source, and there are 12 ref tags attached to it. I've obtained a copy of this publication, so I can help to identify page numbers. Spintendo 00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works cited section

This section should be alphabetized by author for easier perusal. (I've already begun this process; I'm about ⁠1/2⁠ the way completed.)
- Fixed Spintendo 03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confirmed Spintendo
There are a lot of anonymous sources within the Works cited section. These need to be given an author; if no author is evident, then the institution/organization that published the information becomes the author.
There are also a lot of single ref-noted sources placed in this section. The Works cited section is very helpful in circumstances where you have one or several authors with multiple titles whose ref notes are placed often within the article, in multiple locations. If a reference only appears once in the entirety of the article, it probably does not need to be placed in the Works cited section. I'd like to hear your ideas on this. What do you think? Please advise. Spintendo 02:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Numerous areas of the text are not grammatical, and several spelling errors exist
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article contains several instances of MOS:AWW
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article uses Notes and Bibliography (or Works cited)-style references. In that system, all references are included in the notes section. Sources that have page numbers are shown in the notes section as author-name links to another separate entry in the Works cited section. In this article, all the sources are located in the work cited section, with every referenced source being given an author-name link to an entry in the Works cited section, instead of only being shown in the Notes section, which creates unnecessary redundancy for the reader
	2b. 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).	Secada's own publication (which is used as a reference many times within the article) has no page numbers listed with any of the ref tags. That makes the information sourced from it unverifiable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	—
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Sections of close paraphrasing identified from the Sun-Sentinel source
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	—
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certain sections questionably delve into off-topic areas, such as Secada's audition for his school's musical production of A Christmas Carol
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	—
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is uniquely stable, having had only 183 edits over a 15 year time period.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	—
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	—
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has failed GA review.

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.