Talk:Para Siempre/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns:

A little bit of weasel wording going on, some examples:
- Album history, second paragraph, "Despite this, he made live performances in very important cities..." Suggest rewording to "Despite this, he made live performances in the Mexican cities of (list cities) and the American cities (List cities)." Done Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical reception, first paragraph "Two experienced performers..." Experienced sounds peacocky. Done Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception, first paragraph, first sentence, you mention the two performers who collaborated, but never say who they are or what they did. Also, this whole paragraph sounds like opinion, but it isn't stated whose opinion is being given. From the sourcing, it looks like a review by Joel Brito? Need to attribute the opinions to someone, and most of this paragraph reads as opinion. Done Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Album section, third paragraph, first sentence. The "instead of employing multiple composers and producers from previous albums..." I think you mean "instead of employing multiple composers and producers as in previous albums, ..." which reads correctly. Done Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, just a few concerns as mentioned above. I took the liberty of adjusting a few small things. Nice work, and after these concerns are addressed, I have no hesitation on passing it for GA.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.

Comment The three images are nearly all identical, I do not believe they can all be supported by a fair use claim, they are near redundant images. — R ² 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing (I had printed this out and was reviewing it as well). They have the same image, just with a different background color and cover text. They are not discussed in the article. They fail NFCC #8 pretty clearly and can just as easily be described in text. I would not pass this article for GA until those images are removed. Done Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in describing the tour, is it really necessary to list all those cities? "Major American and Mexican cities" covers it quite well. And I'd go through the article and convert a lot of passive voice to active. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I will need help about this issue (passive to active), and about the cities I think is important to name them, since (for the Mexican cities) there are very important cities on the list, but another cities are not that big, that is why I wanted to describe the mini-tour with all the cities. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and did a copyedit for some passive voice as well as other convoluted phrasing. I see the extraneous album covers have been removed (Thanks Daniel, for bringing that to our attention!) and unless Daniel has some other objections, I'll feel pretty comfortable with passing this for GA within the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since all issues are taken care of, I'll pass this article as GA now. I strongly suggest a peer review if you're thinking of trying for FA status, I'm only a so-so copyeditor, and the prose would benefit by a fresh pair of eyes. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]