Talk:La Llave de Mi Corazón/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This article fails the GA criteria, in such an undeniable way.

• The release date, label and Guerra as a producer in the infobox are not supported by any source in the body of the article. Missing alt as well.
• The lead is quite good but needs some rearrangement. You mention the achievements of the singles but once more no source to back it up.
• Background "The song was an immediate success and top the airplay charts in some countries." → same as previous, on top of that very vague. "performed at the ceremony" → what song? No not sure how sales of other albums are relevant here.
• The singles are mentioned but no sources supporting release dates, commercial performance, or anything else.
• The genres should be cited in the composition section as well.
• Musical style, writing and composition → just call it composition. "The album standard version consists of twelve tracks" → this can and should be removed. You need to vary the vocabulary here. It's like A is 1, B is 2. "Sabia Manera" is a son song → what?
• Critical reception → "The album was praised by the critics due to the musical structure and fusion of styles." → I wouldn't say this with only two reviews, "Critics noticed the musical structure and fusion of styles", would be enough. "Following the success of the album" → you have yet to talk about the success and you are already affirming such. If success is critical reception, awards and commercial...there are still two topics to go before that. Guerra`s → Guerra's
• Credits and personnel → I'm not sure if I know what is going on in here. Please see Personnel. Mainly on this one "Recording/Mix Engineers-Ronnie Torres-Luis Mansilla-Allan Leschhorn".
• On the Track listing is missing a reference for "All tracks are written by Juan Luis Guerra".
• The Chart performance and Sales and certifications sections are a mess. There are no templates in any of these two, there are sales without certifications and also the other way around. Half of this should be moved to the commercial performance section.
• References are never perfect, but this is beyond repair. Authors are missing, and dates and access dates are missing as well. Poor formation of websites, no wikilinks on first instances. Some of these duo to what I pointed out before.

To sum up, the range of coverage is there and a little more research will make it better. Strong and severe Wp:Mos problems in the entire article. I strongly advise you to take a look at other GA and FA articles as there are plenty of them. Please don't nominate this or any other article in this shape, again. As of right now, you can't address the issues within the usual time, as to bring this article to the aforementioned status would require a lot of time. I believe I have justified myself regarding the quick-fail of this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)