Wikipedia:Peer review/Segundo Romance/archive1

Segundo Romance

This is an article that I've promoted to GA back in 2014 and wasn't sure if it could ever achieve FA, but now I would like the article to be peer review to see if it has a chance becoming a featured article. I'm using both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album), which are both FA, as references for this article.

Thank you in advance, Erick (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Richard3120

Hi Erick, I've had a quick look over the article, and these are the thoughts that immediately spring to my mind:

• There are a few places where the grammar makes the text confusing. One is "Despite the album's [Romance] success, Miguel did not release a record that was similar to Romance. Instead, he opted to record Aries (1993)"... well, he DID release a record similar to Romance... what is meant is that the similar record (Segundo Romance) was not released as the immediate follow-up to Romance – this needs to be clarified. Another potential confusion is "Although the Mexican daily El Siglo de Torreón reported that the production would feature ... original compositions by Manzanero and Calderón, the album contains 11 covers", and then in the next paragraph it says "Three of Manzanero's compositions ... are covered by Miguel on the album" – I think there needs to be some emphasis made that Manzanero didn't specifically write new songs for this album.
• It would be nice if there was more information about the background and recording, as there is for Romance and Romances – why these particular songs were chosen, why Miguel decided to work with three different producers, etc. Maybe there isn't any other information, which would be a shame.
• The critical reception section probably needs an album ratings box, and could do with some more reviews if there are any available.
• An FA reviewer will definitely pick up on the lack of images in the article – there are none. I would suggest one of Miguel singing on stage, one of Manzanero (considering his major input on the album), and maybe one of one of the old artists whose songs were covered, like Carlos Gardel or José Alfredo Jiménez.

If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Richard3120 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Brankestein

Hello Erick, I read the article and I support the comments by Richard3120, and I have some minor comments:

• Maybe you could add something related to the album's legacy on the lead, seeing that it was significant to the popularity of bolero music during the 1990s.
• An album ratings box on the critical reception section. You could also add some comments about the album by Apple Music's editors.
• Some images would improve the article as well.
• The background and recording section mentions the album's producers, but maybe it would be okay to mentione them too on the track listing section through a note indicating that all tracks were produced by Luis Miguel and co-produced by Armando Manzanero, Juan Carlos Calderón and Kiko Cibrian. In case that Miguel and the three co-producers did not work together on every track, then there should be another column for producers.
• Maybe the commercial performance section could be renamed as release, starting the paragraph with album's release date and proceeding with it chart/commercial performance.
  • Also the singles section could be moved as a sub-section for the proposed release section.
• Maybe the musical style sub-section could be improved with a paragraph about the album's lyrics.

I think that's all. Brankestein (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Hey Richard! Information about this album prior to its release was hard to find, but I did found some content to add. I added why Los Angeles as chosen as the place for recording and that there was an omitted track that another singer would later sing. I couldn't find any other reviews even with Newsbank, but I did add the ratings box and added an image of Manzanero. I also took your advice about the confusing prose and clarified the best I could. @Brankestein: Thanks for your review Brankestein. I added the album's legacy on the lead since its supposed to summarize the article and that section is a key component. Editorial reviews found on online vendors such as Amazon and iTunes are to be avoided per WP:ALBUMAVOID, they're only made to persuade consumer to purchase the album. I think a release section would be more appropriate about how the album was promoted on its release and if there were any delays or leaks. But I did add when the album was released in the prose since it wasn't sourced (thanks for catching that). For the lyrics, I added that all the songs are about love in the background section with a source. For the track listing, I found that some lyrics and music were credited to different composers so I separated the two per the booklet. I thank you both for taking your time to review this article. Erick (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Magiciandude, I think you've addressed my concerns – the article still needs a little copyediting for spelling, grammar, and rewriting here and there to make the sentence structures less awkward (for example, in the "Background and recording" section, "Los Angeles was chosen due to having facilities containing advanced recording equipment for production" is probably better written as "The Record Plant was chosen as the recording studio for its state-of-the-art recording facilities"). But in general it looks as though it would have a good chance now of making FA – well done. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AJona1992

• "begin recording it on March 1994" - replace "on" with "in" since there is no specific date. Same can be said in the promotion section.
• Is the "c" added at the end of José Alfredo Jiménez suppose to be there?
• Avoid overlinking (Cristian Castro is linked twice)
• The parentheses in commercial performance about Miguel having two platinum disks could be reworked to avoid the awkward sentence structure currently present.
• Central America isn't a country, it should be noted individually instead of being listed with other countries.
• There is a tongue twister in the legacy section right as it starts, at this point the reader knows the predecessor is Romance, so removing it would better ease the reading.
• You should link unrequited love as it is the core theme of bolero music.
• Isn't the Chicago Tribune a publication?
• Those are all my comments while reading the article. Sorry in the delay, Erick. Best – jona ✉ 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@AJona1992: Thanks for your input, I believe I address most of the issues you brought up. The Chicago Tribune's articles are published by Tribune Company. Any suggestions for the awkward sentence to make it flow better? Erick (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's that awkward, to be honest – I'd probably write "...making Miguel the first Latin artist to have two albums certified platinum in the U.S. (the first being Romance). Richard3120 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe with the issues I have addressed by everyone and only having to wait for the copy-edit, I will now close this PR. Thank you everyone who added their two cents to the article. Erick (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)