Talk:Segundo Romance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully-written article, I'll take this review on. This doesn't look like it needs too much at all to achieve GA status - I'll take a more detailed look and post my thoughts over the coming days. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm looking forward to it! Erick (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my initial thoughts on what is a already great article:

Lead

"It is a follow-up to his 1991 album, Romance, in which Miguel covers eleven Latin ballads ..." Does he cover the 11 latin ballads on Romance or on Segundo Romance? I think this needs rewording to clarify that we are talking about the latter in this instance.

I don't know if I should remove "11" or say "in this album he records 11 songs" something, something. Any suggestions?

I've had a go at rewording this sentence. What do you think? — sparklism ^hey! 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's what was needed! Thanks! Erick (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...eleven Latin ballads which were written from 1934 to 1993." This is slightly ambiguous, would it be better to say "...eleven Latin ballads that were written between 1934 and 1993"?

See above.

You could wikilink Record_Plant#Los_Angeles here if you wanted to...

Done

...on the chart" → "...on the same chart"?

Done

Background and recording

"In July 1993, a month after releasing his previous studio album (Aries), Miguel expressed interest in a follow-up to Romance during an interview in Miami." The brackets break up the flow here, and the Aries album was previous to what? How about something more along the lines of: "During an interview in July 1993 that followed the release of his eighth studio album, Aries, Miguel expressed interest in a follow-up to Romance"? (That might not be quite right but I hope you get the idea..)

Done

I think the first mention of Manzanero here should be his full name (and wikilinked) since this is the first time the body of the article mentions him.

Actually his full name is mentioned in the first paragraph is already wikilinked there.

You are correct - my apologies! — sparklism ^hey! 06:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

For the LA Times review, where it says: "...calling it an "updated, well-produced versions of classic romantic bolero and tango songs"" the plurals don't quite work properly. How about "...saying that it contained "updated, well-produced versions of classic romantic bolero and tango songs"." or something similar.

Done

Track listing

Instead of 'Original Year' as a column header, how about 'Year of Composition'?

I will do this for the other two Romance album

Are you planning to do this? — sparklism ^hey! 19:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

I might be showing my ignorance of the subject here, but I'm struck by the similarity of the names of Bill Reichenbach Jr. (horn) and Bill Rickenbach (brass). Are these guys really two different people?

Charts and certifications

Did you plan to wikilink the chart names in the 'Year-end charts' table? This would be consistent with the other tables in this section.

Personally, I never link the chart names on the Year-end charts section because it's already linked on the weekly charts section.

So is 'Latin Albums' (yearly) the same as 'Top Latin Albums' weekly? — sparklism ^hey! 06:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

As a more general point (and being extra-picky) the article prose contains a lot of brackets - I actually counted 13 pairs, excluding dates, tables, templates etc. Could some of these be removed by a slight reworking of the text? Still, this is a brilliant article and already close to GA, and I'll be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just any one where you feel it's out of place and I'll fix it! =) Erick (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one as an example of what I meant. This isn't a huge deal to me, I just think the flow of the prose would be improved if a few of these could be lost. — sparklism ^hey! 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the article now. Erick (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! I'm happy to pass this as a GA - well done! :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]