Talk:Simplemente Lo Mejor

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simplemente Lo Mejor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 20:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "on the Mexican Albums Chart and the US Billboard Latin Pop Albums chart and number 33 on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart" too many "and". the second "and" should be replaced with a comma

  Done.

• "commented "He's" can an "at" be added by "He's"?

  Wrote "comented that 'he's an artist...'"

• In the background section, "It debuted at No. 1", but in the lede it actually says "number 1", stuff like that, but not exactly that. Regardless, please do be consistent

  Fixed.

• Link Grammy Award per WP:UNDERLINK
• .Done.
• "an editor from Univisión" who? If unknown, I would just say "Univision"
• Nothing in the track listing section is referenced by reliable sources

  The tracklist uses the same link as release. I added the ref..

• Not part of the good article criteria, but it would be nice to have the table by meeting WP:ACCESS, the charts one, as well as the release history table

  Will do later [a bit tired now]. Thanks for the recommendation :)

• In external links, instead of stating the URL, state "Official website"

  Done.

Overall; good job. Once the above issues are addressed, I will pass the article based on the good article criteria. TBrandley 01:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment under Project Albums criteria

While I agree that this is a good article under general Wikipedia guidelines, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP Albums under Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment. Accordingly I've moved the WP Albums assessment to Start. It really would not take much to bring this back up to GA on Albums, and I hope the information is readily available.

1. Composers should be shown in the track listing
2. A "personnel" section. I don't think this should list every 2nd Violist, if you get my drift, but if a consistant keyboardist appears, he/she should be listed. Any credited guest musicians should be listed. Because this is a "greatest hits" compilation, I'm not sure this criteria applies, given each individual track might involve separate musicians.
3. A listing of technical personel. Who was the producer/compiler?

Other than the above issues, this is indeed a "Good Article". 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the WP Albums assessment cannot overcome the GA criteria, which is a guideline with more weight. I am reverting your assessment change. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and also, the information you request above is not available. Otherwise, I would have added it already :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No argument that general GA criteria is met, and that it trumps WP Album assessment. The argument is not whether or not it meets Good Article criteria. The purpose of WP Albums is to improve article quality from an "Albums" standpoint, and from an Albums standpoint the article is missing some basic information. Was this album only released digitally? Usually the missing information is readily available on liner notes from the physical release. If anyone has a copy this could be added. I will not edit war, and will not again change the Albums assessment, but to a certain extent this does the article a dis-service, because another Albums member will only see this as a "GA" article that does not need improvement, and may miss an easy opportunity to improve the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the album. I will buy it sometime and add the missing information because it was, indeed, released physically. Actually, yhere is not much people willing to improve this article; i am the only one working on Arona's albums and other stuff. I understand your point, but I still cannot see how the WP Albums can have a different criteria :S Sorry but I am a bit confused. We can discuss this on my talk so that I can better understand your point, and I'd appreciate it very much. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(continued at User talk:Hahc21, note this has become a general discussion and is no longer directly related to this article.) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)