Talk:Chris Pérez/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose checks out OK to me-- a few suggestions... In lead: ...forced them to end their relationship because Pérez' image...-- Is there a convention that possesives for a name that ends with z uses apostrophes in this way? In Relationship with Selena: This stressed Selena, who did not want to hide...-- Suggest a change to "This was stressful for Selena, who..."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some details in the lead can probably be dropped: In 1998 he met Venessa Villanueva through his friend John Garza, and began dating her.--Not something discussed in any particular detail in the body; not closely related to majority of content on Pérez's relationship with Selena. Pérez and Villanueva had two children, Cassie and Noah, before divorcing in 2008-- Same as above; not sure present family life is necessary in the lead if it is not the basis for notability or more fleshed out in the body.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Layout is reasonable; uses a dual references / bibliography reference stye in addition to sfn templates as the article draws from one source many times on separate pages.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is pretty well-sourced. Quoted sections are correctly attributed. However, BLPs require a higher standard of sourcing, so my review of citations will be strict: Much of the early life and 1989—1995 sections are from an autobiography written by Pérez himself. I think the source is obviously helpful and ought to be used, but nearly half of the citations for this article are from the autobiography. Perhaps you could consider finding some independent sources that verify some (but not all) of these details, or perhaps cut some of it out? Obviously, the subject's early life is not why they are particularly notable (although, it is interesting to read). Under the 1999–2009 section -- The song was originally not planned for the album, for fear that listeners would think Pérez included the track for commercial reasons. -- is this sourced to Perez's book? If it is, the latter is little strangely stated. You might consider instead saying, "...for the album, as Perez feared that listened would think they included the track for commercial reasons." This line under Personality and musical influences -- Until the release of his book, Pérez had kept quiet about his personal life and shied away from media attention. -- has three citations, and probably only needs one or two. Some information under the 1995–1998 section, though more about Selena, is not clearly cited or does not seem to be from the court proceedings: When Selena arrived home she told Pérez that Saldivar did not give her the correct documents, and Saldivar tried convincing Selena to return to her motel room alone. Pérez told Selena it was too late, and he did not want her driving alone at night. Selena then agreed to meet with Saldivar the next morning. On March 31, she met with Saldivar, who delayed the transfer of papers by telling Selena she had been raped in Mexico. There is also the following sentence that I cannot verify with the sources present: Selena took Saldivar to a local hospital, where doctors found no evidence of rape.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Most claims here are sourced to a specific reference, and I see no obvious instances of synthesis, but see above for concerns about claims that are not clearly verified, some of which may constitute original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article provides a very comprehensive timeline of his career developments, right from when Pérez was in his first band to present day where he has written an autobiography reflecting on his career. Generally, with music artists, there is usually a "reception" section of one kind or another, but the format of the current article works very well, incorporating reviews and commentary on his work in the scope of the timeline. Pérez is covered in this article mostly regarding his musical work and his personal relationship with Selena. Something else that should be added in the last section is brought up in this article, namely that he is still performing and seems to be a visible name in the Rock en Español genre (also see this and this).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At first glance, I thought there was an excess amount of detail regarding his and Selena's relationship (and family opinions of it), but it is relevant to his membership in the band at the time, not to mention that many of these details are well-documented in sources.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Discussion of contentious topics, such as the DUI offense, the events surrounding the death of Selena, and reviews of Pérez's work all appear to based on verifiable sources. There does not appear to be any instances of weasel words, per se, but please see concerns in 2b about over-reliance on a primary source inre: the timeline, particularly early events. Coverage of this time line that is primarily based on the subject's own autobiography is inherently POV and needs to be addressed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some editors with presumed COI issues appear to be editing the page, but none of this amounts to any substantial instability.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image used for the infobox, contains a free license via Flickr. No reason to dispute that the photographer is the uploader of the image. Sound file is a brief clip from a song with a clear fair-use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photo is of Pérez performing during a concert; obviously relevant, and caption is adequate. Sound file is a song written by Pérez; also obviously relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer: I JethroBT (talk · contribs) 20:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The writer has disappeared, so I'm closing the review. Wizardman 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)