Wikipedia:Peer review/Romances/archive1

Romances

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a thorough and detailed review on how to vastly improve this article to able to have at least a GA article status. I'll work on the copy editing once the other problems have been addressed. Any additional tips or suggestions would also be appreciated. One of the major problems I'm having is how to write the composition since most of the songs are covered. EDIT: I'm also working on the production section by including the background information for the producers and need suggestions as to what to put on the tour section.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have looked at this from the aspect of defining what needs to be done to make this into a Good Article. It is not a complete prose review, and I am not well-informed on the subject, but I hope my suggestions are useful:-

• General point: I think that, as a first step towards preparing this article for possible GA status, you should look at some of the album articles that have already become GAs. They tend to be much longer, and more comprehensive, than this article. In particular:-
  • Background: This brief account of Louis Miguel's earlier successes does not provide background information relating to Romances. Why, specifically, did he decide to make this album, and why did he choose a title so close to that of a previous success?
  • The heading "Composition" seems wrong; the section seems to be about the choices of material rather than the writing of songs. This information would probably be better included in an expanded Background section, but in any event should come before Recording and production
  • Recording: Take a look at the Recording section in, for example, the I Want You (album) article. Much more informative (and with sound clips, too). This s the level of detail you should be aiming at (lokk at other GAs too).
• Prose: the prose isn't bad, but there are occasions when it slips into a non-encyclopedic tone and looks sloppy. For example: "The two albums even became a hit in countries outside of Latin American such as Finland and Saudi Arabia." Two albums cannot be "a hit", "Latin America" not "Latin American", and the words "even" and "of" are redundant. Other things I spotted:-
  • translated into, not in
  • close repetition of "was composed by"
  • " where it remained on the position for eleven nonconsecutive weeks." First, the words "on the position", apart from being non-idiomatic, are redundant. Secondly, how can it "remain" for noncosecutive weeks? The fact that the weeks were not consecutive means that it did not "remain".
  • These are a few examples. In general the prose needs some careful polishing.
• Performance and technical credits: So many names: are they all necessary?
• References: (small point) 32 and 34 seem to be lacking retrieval dates

I hope these comments are helpful. If you have any query, please contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Brianboulton, I found your review to be very helpful. I will be sure to ask if I have any more questions. Magiciandude (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)