Talk:All I Want Is You (album)

Notability

I'm wary of removing the notability tag personally, but I believe that this album qualifies as notable as:

• It is the debut album of a Grammy-nominated songwriter;
• It has charted on the main Billboard 200, as well as peaking within the top 50 of specialist charts;
• It has spawned a Billboard-charting single.

I cannot yet comment on whether the album passes the 'multiple reliable sources' criterion beyond it being mentioned in interviews with Miguel and in chart listings. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:All I Want Is You (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs) 06:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, my name is CaliforniaDreamsFan, and I'll be reviewing this article! You will receive the review within a couple of days .

Review=

Infobox

• Add an alt please.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly believe you should be adding an Hlist or Flatlist (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Horizontal_lists) to the genre/label/producers (as quote: "Hlist/Flatlist are available to improve accessibility and semantic meaningfulness. This feature makes use of the correct HTML markup for each list item")

It's never been brought up to me at featured article nominations; the guideline you're citing states the advantage for blind people whose software would misread bulleted lists, but this article doesn't use bulleted lists. I'm unclear as to the actual advantages and disadvantages regarding comma-separated lists vs. flatlists, and what the consensus (if any) is about it, but I do know a fundamental rule of WP:MOS is for styles and formatting to be consistent within an article; if commas are used to separate items elsewhere in the article, then the same should apply to the infobox IMO. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• The rest is good!

Lead section

• You've repeated the year of the album's release twice; remove 2010 before "debut album".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reword" "It also received positive reviews; critics found some of the music inconsistent but praised Miguel's singing/songwriting abilities while drawing comparisons to American recording artist Prince." –––> "It received positive reviews from most music critics; some found the music inconsistent but praised Miguel's singing/songwriting abilities while drawing comparisons to American recording artist Prince." Reason being is that here is some negative/mixed points from some critics.

All the reviews cited were ultimately positive, some criticism notwithstanding, so it'd seem less accurate to say "most". Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Background

• Change the title to Background and composition, since you've mentioned the composition-side of the album.
• "Miguel continued working with various underground acts and writing for mainstream recording artists" ––– Any examples of who these acts are?
• The rest of this section is really good!

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception

• The first paragraph is great!
• Change "three" to "four", as I can see there are four singles from the album.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've stated that he "began touring as a supporting act for Usher and Trey Songz.", but it isn't featured through lead section? Add something about this please.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• "By May 2011, "All I Want Is You" and "Sure Thing" had reached a combined digital/mobile sales of over 825,000 units." –––> Shouldn't this be featured in both of their respective articles? If not, then don't you think it would be wise to create a singles heading and add some information about the four singles there (music video, brief chart performance, etc.)? (just because the articles themselves are significantly lacking). Prime example of such: Hard Candy (Madonna album).

Eww, a singles heading? In all seriousness, adding more information about singles (that's not covered by sources specifically dealing with this topic, i.e. the album) is not the best research and not great summary style (WP:CFORK). Dan56 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, basically the entire bottom two paragraphs are reviews. I suggest you add another heading that says Critical reception because that's a good amount of reviews to section off. Plus, add a review infobox to the right side with the publications, grades, and links.

You seem to have a penchant for small sections lol... this creates more complication than needed; sales are also "reception", and I'm of the firm belief that everything goes hand-in-hand in most cases; in the spirit of MOS:ALBUM#Article body, I only dedicate multiple, detailed paragraphs to a section when the information is available; when it isn't, and there's only one paragraph about things like marketing strategies, I merge it with related information to create a more engaging, substantial section. The last paragraph deals with a review that was written a few years after the original reception, so I think it can conveniently be considered separate of the previous paragraphs. As for a ratings template, I avoided that because there are only three scores given, which are economically reduced to prose here, leaving space for a quotebox that relates to all four paragraphs; Rytlewski touches on Jive, the poor sales, the singles, and his own critique made in retrospect. Everything is tied together. I'm getting the impression that's not what you're used to in your own articles or the ones you've encountered, but it is with mine (xx (album), Maxinquaye, New York Dolls (album), Agharta (album)). There's no right or wrong, just style of the main contributor. Dan56 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from that, your writing of the reviews is good!

Track listing

• Add references/links to both the track list and bonus track list boxes, just to verify the track list (iTunes, Amazon, etc.)

I replaced the AllMusic ref. with one citing the liner notes (for the track listing+personnel). I removed the bonus track since there's no reliable source available to verify it; I'm not sure who even added that from the beginning. Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Personnel

• Everything is good!

Charts

• Everything is good!

References

• Everything is good!

Other additional notes

• This may sound dumb, but was this album released worldwide or just in the US (physically/digitally)? If just in the US, then leave it, but if not, add a release history table.

I have no idea, but if it only charted in the U.S. and the sources only discuss its reception there, I dont see the point in digging for more about releases elsewhere. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any further promotions/public performances/a tour? If not (or not sources to back them up), then just leave it.

A quick search mentioned him touring as a supporting act for Usher, which is already mentioned in the article. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall

A really short and sweet article, all in good quality! Just some small touches. On hold for seven days! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, passing! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 00:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mark-pitts.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)