Talk:Maria Maria/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:39, 29 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 05:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will claim this song article. As part of my reviews of songs, I will give you a personal review of the song that has no bearing on the article GA review itself. I will fully review this article either by Monday, August 21 or Tuesday, August 22. Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for Wikipedia, a dog gave an introduction to his review, commentating, "...I swear I heard of this song befo- Oh, oh god I have. From Mr. 'Another One'". The dog quickly had relief after listening to the song, stating "oh, how this song is the superior version from Mr. Another One. The rock band Santana hit it off with R&B specialist Product G&B with a fantastic guitar riff beat fully fusing rock and R&B vocals into a hip-hop jam" further equating that "Rock + R&B = Hip Hop? The world works wonders". The dog finished his review, stating, the music video was a nice touch to the festive atmosphere that Maria Maria invokes, with the dog wishing for Maria to find her ending in a happy world. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following are suggestions and comments worth addressing the grammar and sentence structure during my skim and full read-through of the article for the editor-at-large. If you believe a suggestion is improper, not appropriate for the text, or changes the meaning of the passage, please feel free to disregard with a explanation:

Prose[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Comma after "Rekow".
  • For this sentence: At the 2000 Grammy Awards, the song won for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals, before it experienced commercial success. I would omit "for" and remove the comma after "Vocals".
  • across the world to worldwide?
  • 10 weeks to ten weeks?
  • The song's success has inspired numerous sampling usages plus a restaurant chain named after the track. Comma before "plus".

Background[edit]

  • ... Jean said that he came up with the song's composition by reworking by a 1993 Wu-Tang Clan song titled ... Remove "by" as left-over word to omit.

Composition[edit]

  • Jean and Duplessis produced "Maria Maria" while the Product G&B provide the lead vocals "provide" to "provided".
  • The lyrics of the song ... to The song's lyrics ...?
  • Same sentence, "... and wishes for more pleasurable existence". Missing word "a" before "more".
  • The following sentence, ... as does Jean, who came up with his intermittent lyrics by freestyling "came up with" to simply "made"?
    • "...Jean, who made his intermittent lyrics by freestyling" sounds a little awkward in this context, so I'm changing it to "created" instead. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion[edit]

  • It feature Santana ... to It featured Santana ...
  • ... during which a tawny woman arrives and begin dancing with them I would remove "tawny" here. It is not necessary to describe the woman this way.

Critical reception[edit]

  • For the beginning paragraph of this section, I would add an intro sentence about how the music critics thought overall about the song, and if there were any shared themes among them.
  • For this one, as far as I can tell, so long as it is a topic statement, it should be ok. WP:RECEPTION, I use this to introduce better my "Reception" section's opinions on roller coaster articles. For instance, on my last GA, Rampage (roller coaster), I wrote: "Upon its initial opening, Rampage received generally positive reviews from critics." to summarize the reviews from the paragraph. On a random article, S&M (song), its section starts "'S&M' received mixed responses from music critics." As far as I know, so long as you are not providing synthesis and only summarizing the perceptive reception of reviewers, it should be good (if that makes sense). Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just that words such as "positively", "negatively", and "mixed" are subjective. I'll say "generally positive" for now, but if someone comes in and changes it later, I may remove it again. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you got what I was putting down. :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second paragraph, I am not sure if "Ultimate Santana" is a good source to review, as the website is a self-described "Comprehensive Santana Resource".
  • @ResolutionsPerMinute: Of course. I ask if this source is a reliable since it seems akin to a (fan) blog about the artist (or, at worst, an encyclopedia-esk source about the subject). I am not sure if it is a reliable source to cite at face value, and ask if there is a track record of verifiability or the author(s) is/are subject experts on the matter of Carlos Santana's band. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly wouldn't classify the source as a blog, because it doesn't seem like there's any way for John Q. Public to sign up for it aside from a Contact Us page, which is only used as a suggestion box and nothing more. Even so, I suppose there's no way to know who wrote it or how they sourced it... They do have a News section, which I guess could back them up, and at the bottom, it says, "Our friends at Giejo Magazine have been kind of enough to profile the leader / guitar player of Savor (who is also the one who put together this site)." Furthermore, at least a site all about Carlos Santana doesn't fangirl his work, as proven by the lukewarm review they gave "Maria Maria". I think that's good enough to take it seriously. Regardless, I might troll the Wayback Machine later to find another source about the restaurant. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know...I am feeling more off-put by the source looking through its contents. Respect the person who put it together, but I am not sure it is passing the V-check for me here. To the point above, Giejo Magazine does not seem like a reliable source and gives me the hypochondria-type vibe, looking at its own articles. If "Savor" is this, I am not sure a tribute band is a form of reliability either. "Official Santana" might be one of those sources that are good to pick up information for further research or other reliable sources, but not be reliable itself, as its authors are unknown, there is no visible editorial board, and its sources are tricky to follow. I would omit it from this article and its contents unless there are some other indications of reliability and verifiability; and replace the content it is currently citing with more reliable sources. Although I do agree with you, they do provide meaningful and well-intentioned scoops on Santana. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I've looked around and found an archive of an old Maria Maria restaurant site, so I added it in and got rid of Ultimate Santana altogether. Any objections? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So on paper, yes, it does look better. However, because the sources are from the official website, its intro sentence would fail WP:ABOUTSELF because the text makes an exceptional claim about the song's success facilitating a restaurant: "'Maria Maria' became such a success that Carlos Santana worked with chef ..." This would seemingly require a couple of secondary sources. I do like the restaurant's inclusion, but it is hard to fit it into relevancy when reliable sources do not cover this topic and the paragraph is built primarily on the official source now. It may work without the claim, simply stating that a chain of restaurants was named after the song by Santana and so on. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the claim. Anything else? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance[edit]

  • "10 weeks" to "ten weeks" here as well?

Legacy[edit]

  • "Maria Maria" became such a success that Carlos Santana worked together with chef Roberto Santibañez and California business Dudum Sports and Entertainment to open a restaurant chain named after the song Omit "together" here as an extra word?
  • The menu, created by Santibañez, contains tradition Mexican food with alterations, containing meals such as mushroom fajitas ... might read better as The menu, created by Santibañez, contains traditional Mexican food with alterations, including mushroom fajitas ...
  • Five artists were recruited to design the restaurants' decor It might be worth to know what kind of artists these were. I presume visual artists or graphic designers or painters rather than musical artists.
  • Santana, who co-signed the track, ... Possible missing word "to" before "the".
    • The source doesn't use the word "to" before "co-sign" either, so I think it's okay. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • 3, to double check, explanation of if this source passes WP:ABOUTSELF? Also "santana.com" as "Santana" as publisher parameter.
    • I've replaced this with the liner notes. Same credits are listed. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5, is this a reliable source? Also "ultimatesantana.com" as "Ultimate Santana".
  • 15, 21, 52, 54, 55, 65, 66, 78-80, 102, 105, URL access date?
  • 26, "santanamigos.pagesperso-orange.fr" should be "Orange S.A.".
  • 53, website or publisher parameter?
  • 72, "Datatransmission.co" should be "Data Transmission".
  • 73, "Soundrivemusic.com." as "Soundrive Music".
  • 104, SANTANA FEAT. THE PRODUCT G & B should be in quotation marks.
  • 106, same with 104 for Maria Maria and 2000.

Additional comments or concerns[edit]

The skim and full-read-through were good in the presentation of the content. Onto the spot checks and final comments. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks: In terms of spot checks, this article was good. Although, I want to point out that in "Legacy", the first paragraph is one source. Normally, not a problem; however, this is from the "the comprehensive santana resource" which is a little bit...eh? Is there another source that could be placed with this one to authenticate the paragraph better? It might seem too narrow of interest for a general audience and be only of interest for Santana fans. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can remember, this was the only reasonable source that talked about the restaurant. I don't think the article will suffer much if it's remove, but this relates to the Ultimate Santana issue above. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + verifiability[edit]

The article is well written, with some minor concerns for the editor to possibly fix. The article works with a general manual of style for songs. The article has a list of reliable sources and the reference list is pretty spot on with either minor changes in format or questions on reliability. Spot checks were all good on this one, outside of a minor problem with the "Official Sanatana" source. Earwig looks good in terms of close paraphrasing, copyright, or plagiarism. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutral[edit]

The article is broad in scope, covering several topics relating to the song with a very good focus on its subject matter. The article is neutral towards its subject, with no outlying problems. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability[edit]

The article has a host of images, visuals, or audible features that are relevant to the work of the song, and whose paperwork seems to be in order. The article is stable, with no ongoing or active edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Alright! This review is completed. Apologies for the delay. I had started this right before my mini-vacation, but best believe this song was on my playlist while I was flying. Only minor things to address here, let me know when you are done! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adog: I've finished my first copyedit and taken care of all the minor issues. See my notes above. The only significant problem is the one with Ultimate Santana, which I'm having trouble comprehending. Also address any other concerns you may have. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Maria/GA1&oldid=1172759014"