Wikipedia:Peer review/I Could Fall in Love/archive2

I Could Fall in Love

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it failed its last FAC and it would be helpful to know if it needs more work before renominating.

Thanks, .jona ^talk 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by esprit15d

It's a strong article, and I congratulate you on the work you've done so far. Some comments/suggestions:

In the second paragraph of "Background and release," there should be a reference behind each sentence, even if the reference is redundant to surrounding sentences.
Is it known (can it be included) on which day she recorded the song? If we know (we may not) it would contribute to the timeline of her subsequent murder.
I'm at a loss as to the value of this sentence: "Fred Bronson of Billboard commented that if EMI Latin had released "I Could Fall in Love" as a single and it had debuted in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 chart, then it would have been the first posthumous debut single to do so since "Pledging My Love" by Johnny Ace in 1955." Purely speculative, and a bit fannish. The reality is they didn't, and if they did, we have no idea how it would have performed.
I would move this sentence to the "Reviews" section: "Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad"."
The term "I Could Fall in Love" appears to often in the body text (58 times!), sometimes several sentences in a row, or in the same sentence. Pronouns and epithets should be used sometimes, for example: "the song," "the tune," "the ballad," or good-ole-fashioned, "it."
In the "Reviews" section, quotes within quotes should use single quotation marks. So, random example, "Sally said that the song 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star' was her favorite."
The last paragraph in "Composition and lyrics" is mostly original research (meaning whoever wrote that paragraph listened to the song, then interpreted the lyrics), and even the parts that are referenced don't make it clear in the actual text who holds these opinions. Writing these analysis sections are some of the hardest things to do at Wikipedia, so I feel your (or whoever wrote it) pain, but keep a couple things in mind to make it easier: (1) Wikipedia has NO OPINIONS about anything. Not even "obvious" things. Not even about Hitler. Not even about cute babies. Neutral about everything. So if you read a sentence and it's a naked opinion, it's already wrong. (2) EVERY OPINION in Wikipedia has to be, not only referenced, but openly attributed to someone, and someone reputable and/or notable. (See policy WP:SUBJECTIVE). "XYZ critic said the song was about this." "Television show made this comment." "XYZ movie character said this, prompting the public to react this way ." "The lyrics say this" (but without any explanation). See if you can find what the author of the song had to say about it's meaning. The first few sentences of that section are the worst offenders, but the whole paragraph needs rewriting. The critical reception section is a much better example.
I think the Music video section could be expanded, perhaps with information about its development, direction, production, etc... Could you add a screencap of the video?
Remove the redlink from the "Covers" section.
The "Books" section should be called "Further reading."
Remove the link to Metro Lyrics, since it's a copyright violation. See if you can find the lyrics at a site that owns copyright, like Selena's site, the site for the movie soundtrack, or the label's site.

Great job, keep up the good work, and I hope this review has been helpful!Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]