The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 November 2021 [1].
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)
For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:
Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot" Latin dance numbers and "melodramatic" 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?
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.
Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
Will take a look soon. Pamzeis ( talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:
So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 November 2021 [1].
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)
For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:
Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot" Latin dance numbers and "melodramatic" 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?
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.
Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
Will take a look soon. Pamzeis ( talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:
So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis ( talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)