Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vuelve (album)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [1].

Vuelve (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination with آرمین هویدایی and Tomica. This is my first non Luis Miguel album article in a long time. I worked extensively along with the editors mentioned and am tackle ready to tackle this for FA. Whatever issues the article presents, I am ready to address and any questions that might need to be answered. Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Erick is User:Magiciandude, for the avoidance of doubt about top contributors stats check.

User:Max24 is shown as a top editor of this article and is still actively editing. And yet, two other editors are listed as co-noms. Was Max24 consulted prior to this nomination (see FAC instructions) and is Max24 in agreement that the article is FAC ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Might the article benefit from a non-free sample?
• File:DracoRosa3.jpg: source links don't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how does the media files look now? I uploaded two samples, each one to represent the uptempo and slow tempo tracks of the album, respectively. I used the tracks that were not released as singles so I don't have to justify its inclusion on this article in addition to their usage on the article about the song. If two samples are not suitable and one of them has to go, which one would you recommend keeping? Erick (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on the FURs, particularly the purpose of use item? That would help justify having two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: How do the FURs look now on the "purpose of use" section? Erick (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:

• I have a question about the following sentence: Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot"
  pop ballads. This specifically defines the genre as Latin dance, but the infobox only includes Latin. Shouldn't it be the more specific Latin dance since this is brought up in the above sentence and in the lead, and would be a more useful descriptor than the more generic Latin
  identifier?
• I have a question about the translations. Apologies if this is rather obvious. I have not worked with materials from other languages so I am not familiar with this. A majority of the Spanish titles are translated, but there are a few instances, such as
  A Medio Vivir and "Marcia Baila
  ", that do not have this. Shouldn't it be consistent for each Spanish title?
• In the "Critical reception" section, there are three instances in which the star rating is included in the prose. This is an example, The Los Angeles Times' Lechner gave the album three-and-a-half out of four stars. I do not find this rating to be particularly useful in the prose. It is already in the professional ratings box, and I think the prose is best left to actually discussing what is in the review. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose for all three instances.
• What is the structure for the "Critical reception" section? Right now, it reads more like two paragraphs with reviews somewhat randomly listed without any real rhyme or reason. See
  WP:RECEPTION
  if you would like a good resource on how to write a reception section.

Thanks for the comments as always

Aoba47. I've addressed everything but the last part and I'll admit I was taken back a bit since this I never had this problem on my past FACs. One idea I have is the first paragraph would be for what critics liked about the album and the second paragraph what critics didn't like about it. This would be consistent with the opening lead since the overusage of ballads was criticized and would be useful on the second paragraph. Erick (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for your response. To be clear, I did not mean for the final comment to come across as rude or offensive. I greatly admire your work on Wikipedia, and you have done a great job with this article. With the last comment, I was more so asking about your approach for this section, and I should have worded that more clearly. I was just somewhat uncertain of this section was structured. For instance, there are three critics who dislike "No Importa la Distancia" (i.e. Promis, Burr, and Tarradell), and it may be beneficial to organize these critiques together. I think your idea of separating the positive reviews into one paragraph and the negative into another makes sense to me. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this.
  Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Aoba47: Oh no no no, I greatly appreciate your feedback and I'm actually glad you brought that section up. This will help for future FACs. I should've said "surprised", instead of "taken back" and I do apologize if I came across as offended. Erick (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I just wanted to make sure. Let me know when you have revised that section.
  Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hey there @

Aoba47:, I was working on the critical reception on a sandbox of mine and just finished revamping it. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it!
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Four weeks in and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination attracts considerably more interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:

• "asked him to write a
  WP:EGG
  ?
• Per
  MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  , titles of works should be italicised in citations

So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your support and making the tweaks. I changed "a

anthem". آرمین هویدایی (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal: my review is on talk. I intended to review the Spanish-language sources, per the request at FAC talk, because two prior Supports suggest that this article was indeed FAC-worthy and ready for a source review. But, the prose is lacking (unlikely to be fixed by a copyedit), the lead is poorly organized and scattered, and there are sourcing problems in the few Spanish-language sources I checked (suggesting that should this article come back to FAC in the future with better writing and text that conforms to high-quality sourcing standards, then a thorough check of sourcing should be re-done ... I checked only a few). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- For such issues to be raised in a nom that's been open six weeks is a concern, I suggest following the suggestions above and then perhaps trying PR (or seeing if Sandy is able to check over after improvements) before bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]