Talk:Buenos Amigos/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take this one. Should complete this within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

The lead mentions nothing on what critics though of the single? This can easily be achieved by shifting some content from the reception section

The second paragraph says "Critics praised the song for being Selena's first number one, while others complimented its ballad-like feeling."

Typically 'Reception' should be its own section, or that's what I've seen with every other music GAN I've reviewed?

Done

Furthermore, in the Composition and reception section, who are the people that are reviewing the single? I assume they're critics but do they work for any magazines/websites? Examples include Herón Márquez, Angie Chabram-Dernersesian and Joe Nick Patoski

This section does specify their works (example, "In his book Latin Sensations, Herón Márquez"). I did add Lorena Flores as an editor for The Dallas Morning News.

Track listing section should usually be at the bottom of the article, below any prose (or in this case, just below 'Chart Performance')

Done

""Buenos Amigos" received more airplay when it fell to number two than it did when it was at number one" - this needs a citation

Ref#44 (Latin Notas, Billboard) cites this claim.

References[edit]

Ref 43 is dead

Fixed

Ref 31 is dead

Fixed

On hold[edit]

Overall this is a well written article with very few prose issues to point out. The only thing I could find were some organisational questions, and something that could be added in the lead. This shouldn't be too hard to address. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything that needed to be fixed per your comments. Best, jona ^(talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thank you for addressing them in time, looks like it is a good GA candidate in its own right. I believe they have all been addressed, so promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Best, jona ^(talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]