Wikipedia:Peer review/List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States/archive2

List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the last time I submitted this for PR, the list was only based on the RIAA certifications. The RIAA certifications were based on sales to retail stores as opposed to actual sales. Billboard just recently published the actual best-selling Latin albums since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking Latin records and I've made a major overhaul to the article to reflect on the list. I've based the article on List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom which is FL (with permission from A Thousand Doors) and I need feedback to see if I can get this FL as well.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Thanks a lot for tagging me, Erick; I'll review the article. I think you've got a good list here, and it could well be worthy of becoming a FL with some changes. The first thing that strikes is the lead – it's pretty long for a list of this size; you could probably cut it down by about 20% and it would still be an appropriate length. For example, the third paragraph mainly talks about the Top Latin Albums chart, which would be relevant for a list of number ones on that chart, but is less so here. It mentions how Daddy Yankee brought reggaeton into the mainstream, but doesn't explain why that's important. You could probably cut the entire paragraph if you wanted. Similarly, the fourth paragraph is really long and could easily be cut down. You could remove everything from "In 2008, these requirements..." onwards and replace it with, say, "These requirements were lowered twice due to declining shipment figures for Latin albums, first in 2008 and again in 2013. As of December 20, 2013, the current thresholds for certification are 30,000 for gold, 60,000 for platinum, and 120,000 or more for multi-platinum." You also don't really need to repeat how Latin music is defined in this paragraph, since you already mention it in the second. Speaking of which... As someone who isn't familiar with Latin music, I think it would be worth moving the sentence explaining what it is to literally the very start of the article, i.e. make your opening sentence something like "Latin music is defined by Billboard as a release with at least 51% of its content recorded in Spanish; as of October 2017, the best-selling Latin album in the United States is Dreaming of You by Selena, etc. etc." The lead image is kind of unfortunate – an unlevel, dimly lit photograph of statue doesn't really help my understanding of the US's best-selling Latin albums, or even really identify what Selena looked like. If you can't find any free images of Selena, I'd suggest replacing the image with a clearer someone of somebody else relevant, e.g. one of Luis Miguel with the caption "Luis Miguel was the first Latin artist to have two albums certified platinum", for example. I'm not sure that some of your uses of hypens and em dashes follow Wikipedia's manual of style, and may need to be replaced with en dashs or colons instead, i.e. "subcategories—" -> "subcategories" "certifications were —sales of 100,000 for gold". Try "certifications were 100,000 sales for gold" instead. "with four albums—" -> "with four albums:" "Latin Albums—" -> "Latin Albums:" "Best of the 2000s—" -> "Best of the 2000s:" "1998-The Year" -> "1998: The Year" "1999-The Year" -> "1999: The Year" "RIAA - Gold" -> "RIAA – Gold" "launched "Los Premios Oro y Platino" (The Gold and Platinum Awards in Spanish) to". I think "launched the Gold and Platinum Awards (Spanish: Los Premios Oro y Platino) to" would be closer to our MoS. "Disco de oro", Disco de platino" and "Multi-platino" would then be italicized too. "most sets on the list". What does "sets" mean this context? I've never heard albums referred to in this way. "Entries on the list" would work fine, if you want an alternative. The final sentence in the lead needs a citation. The Sales column might look a little neater if it were center-aligned. 879,00 -> 879,000 Notes a, b and e aren't complete sentences, so don't need terminating periods. The first reference in the General section is kind of confusing me. It says that it's the reference for the "chart positions" (i.e. the best-selling Latin albums chart), but aren't they really taken from this page? I'm guessing that it has has been copy-pasted from this article. It needs to be rewritten, as it makes mentions "number-one albums in the table above", which obviously isn't relevant here. "Switch To SoundScan" -> "Switch to SoundScan" "Country Takes The Crop" -> "Country Takes the Crop" The external links checker has thrown up a few dead links. Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thank you very much for your review. I believe I've addressed most of the issues brought up on your feedback. I kept the previous threshold for Latin albums from the RIAA because all the albums in the list were certified prior to December 2013. I did copy the general section the Top Latin Albums of the '90s and I am considering whether I should just cite the peak positions instead for each album or not. Thoughts? Erick (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Looks much better. I've made a few changes myself here; please revert if you disagree with them. I wonder whether you could just get rid of the General section entirely – the references that you cite are already included in the Specific section (citations 18 and 19), so there's probably no need to repeat them in the General section as well. Any thoughts about centralizing the Sales column? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: That's odd, I thought I already centered them. Well no matter, I both centered the sales amount and removed the general from the references area. Erick (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks better. I've made a couple more changes; please revert if you disagree with them. I rewrote the start of the third paragraph, as you've already explained who the RIAA is in the opening sentence. I also thought that five notes would probably be enough for their own section, so I moved them down, with the added bonus that, now that they're split across two columns, there's less whitespace. Speaking of which, I think it might be worth replacing "Top Latin Albums chart peak" with simply "Chart peak", to reduce the width in that column and remove the whitespace. I also think it would worth rewriting the opening sentence of the fouth paragraph so that Luis Miguel himself is the subject, rather than Segundo Romance, e.g. "Luis Miguel was the first Latin artist to have two albums certified platinum, with Romance and Segundo Romance.", or something similar. Let me know your thoughts. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done I did what you suggested. Thanks again for your review! Erick (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer review by Esprit15d

Per your request, I am currently reviewing the article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, once again, this is a solid article. A lot of attention has been paid to very detailed and tedious dates and statistics, which is worthy of commendation. It is very close to being reaching FL status. I've made non-controversial and/or grammar edits myself. These are my suggestions for your review:

• While many FLs don't bold the title like in featured articles (that is completely optional), the criteria indicate that the lead should 'introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria.' Articles should start with an overview and progress to more specific information. It is more essential in this article to clarify what makes an album a bestseller than what the best selling albums are. With that goal in mind, I moved the sentence starting "Since July 1993, ..." to the first sentence, so we even know what the article is talking about, and the sentence that begins "An album is eligible for recognition..." to establish what a Latin album is.
• The Spanish-language album titles should start with a capital letter and the rest of the words should be lowercase, per the Spanish language (except if the artist did something unconventional). The MOS states: "In titles of songs or albums in a language other than English, the project standard is to use the capitalization utilized by that language, not the English capitalization." I realize that this is odd since many of the articles do not conform to the MOS, unfortunately, and even the actual article titles are wrong, but the standards for a FL are higher, and should conform to the MOS. If it's not clear, I think most of these albums have articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, so you can click those articles to see how they are listed there.
• The picture is great, and the reference section is outstanding. A lot of times, that section is the canary in the coal mine, so great job there.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Esprit15d: Thanks for your feedback and thank you very much for making improvements to the article. In regards to the Spanish caps though, the last time I brought that up in a FLC, I got into major (see that FLC archive here. I really do not want to beat up a horse here. Nonetheless, as I've stated I appreciated the changes you made to the article. Erick (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It makes me personally furious that people show disrespect for languages like this, but this is Wikipedia, and I learned a long time ago you have to pick you battles. Best wishes on the FL nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Esprit15d: Yeah...I try to avoid unnecessary drama on Wikipedia whenever I can. But that's beside the point. I am confident enough now to close this PR and begin the FLC. Thanks for the wishes! :) Erick (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)