Talk:Amor Prohibido

Unforgettable instant classics

Calling certain tracks "unforgettable" and/or "instant classics" can be a bit of a stretch, depending on who the target audience is. Am I right? Musiclover 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

number one hits

wondering what the person who added that meant. it says in the u.s. and mexico--which charts are you referring to, specifically? (as i was trying to find the citations for them....) Bouncehoper 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan sales

In the Japanese version of "Amor Prohibido" page states that the album went gold there. If this is true then someone should edit this page and include it. User talk: AJona1992 —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Certifications

Since the certifications states the album sold 2 million copies in the USA alone (twice) does this mean it sold 4 million copies in total figures? AJona1992 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I think both certifications signify the same thing, shipping of 2 million copies. But since all one can do is report what the source says, that's what I reported. If you feel one is redundant you'll have the problem of deciding which one. --Muhandes (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

4 Million? No. The album has been certified 2x Platinum in 2002 for shipment/sales of 400,000 units (see previous levels here). And then, RIAA has re-certified the album 20x Platinum in 2010 for 2 million units applying the newer certification-levels (newer levels are these). After having been certified the first time in 2002, the album has kept selling between the period of 2002-2010, but RIAA has not received the required fee from the record company in order to issue further certifications for the album. This is quite normal, we see this all the time.--Harout72 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so too, see my comment above. Not sure why someone tagged this dubious though, it's not dubious at all that the certifications were given, the database is reliable. --Muhandes (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

I do not feel confident enough to take this to PR as I have only done a quick skim through. However, there are some comments that I have to improve the article:

• General
  • I noticed that the album / singles are capitalized differently. Some have just the first word and others have every word. I do not know how capitalization works in the Spanish language, but the article needs to be consistent

Well I was told by Erick that the first word of a Spanish language song has to be capitalize while the rest has to be in lowercase letters. That's new to me but since the rules did change a couple of weeks ago I had to follow them.

Okay, I didn't know how capitalization worked in Spanish. Anyway, the article needs to be consistent with capitalization. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Producer and Progressive music are disambiguation links
  • this is a dead link
• Lead
  • I did a little copy-editing on the article. (The article is kinda of long; I may or may not copy-edit other sections.)
  • First sentence of the second paragraph says Mexican music. Can you elaborate just a little bit?

Well she had recorded songs that were more Latin dance-pop/ballads/cumbia whereas Mexican music incorporates mariachi and rancheras. Though "Cobarde" and "Tus Desprecios" were the only tracks that had Mexican music-influence.

• Song structure and lyrical content
  • What encyclopedic information do the song samples give? The captions just say something like "this song won an award". Take a look at Thriller or My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Those two articles have great captions.

Wow! Excellent captions! Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• • This section is quite large. Is there anyway you can trim it down? Take a quick peer at WP:SUMMARY STYLE. It may be best to split it into two sections: Song structure and Lyrical content.

Wouldn't it be sloppy to have two sections based only on the music?

Possibly. I was just suggesting. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll remove the unnecessary information. Though since it hasn't gotten a peer review yet, I'm sure a third-eye would point them out and I'll remove them :)

• Release
  • This section seems to go a little off topic with the awards and such. I would move those to a new section
• Critical reception
  • Only one reviewer in the template? You can add the Billboard review. I would try to have at least three or four.

The others didn't give stars, I can't find any other review who gave this album a star rating.

They do not have to be a star rating. you can add "(favorable)" or "(unfavorable)" to a review box. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Added them :)

• Charts and Certifications
  • Combine the two into a section called "Charts and certifications"
  • Very few albums, and not many in the higher classes, and single peaks; leave those for the respective articles.

What do you mean by this "Very few albums, and not many in the higher classes"?

I meant to say articles on albums. By higher classes I meant GA and FA articles. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Awards and nominations
  • Remove the awards that do not pertain to the album, e.g. Female vocalist of the year. These are awards for Selena, not the album.
• References
  • Move the book to a new section (or sub-section).
  • For a general note, books normally do not need a retrieval date.

I added them because of the new "template" section that is located below the icons of "bold", "italic" when editing an article. On there, it asks for a retrieval date on every citation.

That's fine. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Another general note: wikilink everything that can be wikilinked (e.g. Billboard, Allmusic, etc.) There is no such thing as over linking in references.

Actually I was told not to "overlink" the reference section when a reviewer was reviewing Dreaming of You (album) so I played it safe here.

Oh. I was told by an admin (J Milburn) to either link everything or nothing. It makes sense, because if you link something just once, and the reader sees another reference with that term in it, and if they do not know what it is, they have to manual search for it. I highly doubt the reader is going to search through tons and tons of refs for the same linked term. Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but when I do nominate the article at FAC hopefully it wont be a problem. I'm hopping to nominate the article after Erick successfully gets Romances to FA status, as its his goal to have the first Spanish album to be a FA.

• • Don't switch up the dates. Sometimes you have DD MMMM YYYY and other times you have YYYY-DD-MM. Be one and be consistent.
  • Last general note: A lot of "subscription required"s. If this is going to be a GA or FA, somehow users are going to have to verify the information. Just a heads up.

Yeah, well the information can be verified for those who can access it :)

Very true.

• • Ref 3
    • Billboard --> Billboard
    • John Lannert --> Lannert, John
    • Needs issn
  • Ref 6
    • Add publisher (EMI Latin)
  • Ref 8
    • Need issn
  • Ref 11
    • Allmusic --> Allmusic

The citation is doing that, I didn't put it in italics.

When typing in the work type work=''Allmusic''. The two apostrophes cancel out the italics.

• • • Fix the bracket problem

Huh?

The current title is "Amor Prohibido [Bonus Tracks"]. Brackets mess up when using it in templates. I think you have to use HTML code instead, not sure though.

That's the first 11. You can go on your own and fix the renaming ones. I hope these comments help, and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page!
—Michael Jester (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done thank you so much for giving me these helpful comments :) Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the following concerns however, I did left comments to those I did not fix for a better understanding. Again, thanks for commenting :) Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Caps

Just a quick note: The capitalization for foreign-language should be based on English-langauge sources like Allmusic per WP:CAPS. I don't know how the folks at WikiProject Album didn't see this. Erick (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I following them correctly? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The songs in the article following are Spanish caps. It should instead based on capitalization found on English-language like Allmusic. I got into trouble last year when I followed ALBUMCAPS. Erick (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Expression clean up

Jona has asked for additional feedback on this article. I will improve its expression and formatting but will not conduct nor pre-empt the second GAR.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on the Lead but following are still unclear:

1. Furthermore, she wanted to release a more musically diverse album, which she had commonly practice in her career, though Amor prohibido is believed by music critics to have showcased Selena's wide range of musical abilities.
2. Most of the songs became her signature marking,

Producers in infobox don't match those in 'Technical and production' subsection.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've finished a quick run through of the expression, other problems may remain but I'm moving on. I hope it passes GA this time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll start fixing thanks. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit comments

In copy editing, I see a couple of issues that need pointed out. I'll address more here, as they come up.

• ""Fotos y recuerdos" samples The Pretenders' chant-hook off their 1982 single "Back on the Chain Gang".[43] "

No. I looked up the reference, and it doesn't say "samples". "Sampling" refers specifically to digital sampling, which means that they would have played back the original recording, captured it in a sampler, and worked the resulting sample into their production. If producers, studio musicians or a band recreate a song or arrangement, this is not "sampling", any more than a pianist who plays a sonata is "sampling" the written music. The use of samples also requires legal clearance, and Hynde's lawyers are notably reluctant to give this, so don't say that it's a sample unless you have the reference to back that up. Dementia13 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Followup: I changed this to "rewrite", because there's a much larger difference between the versions than a simple translation would account for. The song's central theme, as described here, is fundamentally different from the version by Pretenders (it's "Pretenders", not "The Pretenders", BTW), which was about the recent deaths of two bandmembers. The original version was angry and bitter, while Selena's version omits these elements and plays up its nostalgic and sentimental elements. Dementia13 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you scrape up some references that describe the differences between the versions of the song, or if you just find some discussion of the original version and contrast that with the information you already have on Selena's, it would make a good addition to the article. Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• " In Tucker Shaw's book The Hookup Artist, Shaw wrote that "Fotos y recuerdos" had used a "synth-violin" for its introduction."

You drop names a lot, and you shouldn't. When you draw attention to your references' names, you imply that the reader should know who they are, which in turn implies that they are subject experts. I haven't heard of Tucker Shaw, and for all I know, The Hookup Artist is a work of fiction, and that statement is untrue. It looks especially suspicious, as I discover that Tucker Shaw is apparently a food writer. Look: you've done the research work. If the source is good and the fact is verifiably correct, just state the fact and leave out the part about who said it, unless it's a direct quote. If the reader wants to know where that fact came from, they can look up your reference. Dementia13 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that prohibits name use to attribute their commentary reviews? I can't find any FA album articles that does as you say. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is, other than the common-sense reasons that I gave. You ordinarily don't need to point out the names of the sources, because the reference takes care of that. It's not a set rule: there are situations when its a good idea, and you did so correctly in the example following: Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of the correct way to include source authors' names:

"Sara M. Misemer and Walter Aaron Clark wrote in their book Secular saints: performing Frida Kahlo, Carlos Gardel, Eva Perón, and Selena, that "Techno Cumbia" reminded them of Guillermo Gómez-Peña's suggestion that "cultures are being superimposed", because of Selena's mixed genres that were influenced by music from Colombia and the Caribbean.[28]"

That's a more complex statement that includes opinion and a quote. In this case, "Who said so?" is important. Not so with the former, which may not even be notable. It doesn't refer to some special kind of violin, it talks about a violin preset that most synthesizers contain. If you have verifiable information about a specific patch from a specific synth, like "the Roland D-50 'solo violin' factory preset", that might be interesting. Dementia13 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: this is indeed a work of fiction. True though the fact may be, you can't use a fictional work as a reference in an encyclopedic article, unless you're writing about fiction. The statement may only have been a character's observation, and isn't bound to any standard of factual accuracy. Again, it may not be notable that it used a synthesized violin patch. Dementia13 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Quintanilla III further immersed the album in the Latin territory, sticking to mixing of the genres such as Latin pop, dance-pop, ballads, and a variety of Mexican music.[10][11][12]"

I can't make sense of that, and can't access the references. I'll delete it at the end of the copy edit, unless it's cleared up. Both halves of the sentence are ambiguous. Dementia13 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the magazine and what it's trying to say is that the songs is Latin music as with all her previous works in the music industry, however, she used a variety of Latin music such as those indicated above. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I made the sentence work by omitting the first half. It looks to me like it makes the point you were trying to. Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Credits and Personnel: do the liner notes specifically say that Quintalilla III played only bajo sexto, and no electric bass? Is this an oversight? Were the electric bass parts played by uncredited session musicians? Dementia13 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where you got that information of him playing bass on the album. According to the album's liner notes he did not play bass. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your list of personnel includes no bassist, other than QIII on bajo sexto, which I'm sure does not appear on every track. Either the bassist was left out of your list, or none was credited, which is possible. Session musicians often are not credited. Dementia13 (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Production and Development: "Domingo Padilla had filled in for Brian "Red" Moore for the duet."

Who is Moore, and what was his role to have been? Was he in Barrio Boyz? He's not named in their article. Dementia13 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I cut that part, because it wasn't related to this album. Dementia13 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: that track may have been included on the re-release, but it wasn't part of the production of this album, which is where it was included. Dementia13 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Similar to previous albums, Selena established a diversity in her songs for Amor prohibido."

This needs explanation, because the previous section established that QIII's departures from the Tejano style were noteworthy enough to attract press attention. If her earlier albums were so "diverse", that would not be the case. Dementia13 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Her earlier albums were all diverse, however, Quintanilla III only produced two Tejano songs on this album. He didn't necessarily "leave Tejano" but this album had more contemporary Latin music (Latin pop, ballads, etc) than her previous works where she used Mexican cumbia. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, that's clear. I might have cut that sentence, but you can put that information back in if you make it as clear as you just did. Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Under Structure and style, I combined some descriptions: "Hoffmann described "Fotos y Recuerdos" as a "hard-edge rock" [sic] song, "No Me Queda Más" as a "touchy ballad" [sic], and "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom" as a "reggae-inflected dance flare" [sic].[17] "

There's a [sic] after each description, because each contains a spelling or grammatical error, or an awkward phrasing. It's difficult to believe that these occurred in a published work, so I suspect that these are not really quotes, and that the errors were introduced when the original material was rephrased. Quotes must be exactly as they appeared, and you furthermore cannot use the quotes in a way that makes them appear to say something other than what they were intended to. For example, I removed from another section a quote that was claimed to describe this album, but turned out to be about the 12 Exitos album. Here, if the phrasing was changed, you need to remove the quotes and leave these statements as paraphrases. Omit the author's name, let the reference speak for itself. Dementia13 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Followup: the above GAR reviewer provided a link to the Hoffmann reference. When you quote, be careful to copy it exactly, because there was an error introduced into every one of those descriptions. They're now fixed. Dementia13 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's what I do. Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I saw above, where a GAR reviewer had you change sentences from "(Something happened) in April 1994", to "In April 1994, (something happened)". I believe that to be bad advice, and here's why: readers want action. Start your sentences with action. There's no grammatical reason to place the date first, and there's a good stylistic reason not to: it delays getting to the point, and that annoys readers. This is not a list or a chronology, it's prose. Your sentence was not about April 1994, it was about something that happened. So put your subject right up front, and describe it afterward. Dementia13 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sheet music is cited as a reference in at least two places. Does the sheet music really say "harmonic hymn tunes" or "uptempo synthesizer"? I've used sheet music for nearly 40 years, including some years working with a prominent publisher, and I've never seen that kind of comment on a piece of sheet music. Not to mention, sheet music rarely has indications about the original instrumentation or the vocal arrangement. Dementia13 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, probably I added the source my accident. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit complete. Parts in question have been altered/deleted. Good luck with the upcoming review: you may still get some suggestions you'll need to comply with, but this was the main thing standing in your way. Dementia13 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have replied. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, good luck. This is a good subject, and I think you've treated it in a nice, comprehensive manner. Reviewers may still find things that need attention, but I don't think there are any drastic problems that would prevent this from passing its review, nothing that can't be fixed, anyway. Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

References

References for future clean up

• Many fans and critics consider Amor Prohibido (1994) both Selena's best album and one of the best Tejano albums of the 1990s. It produced hit singles: the cumbia title track, reggae-flavored Bidi Bidi Bom Bom, mariachi bolero No Me Queda Mas

Importance

@Neodop: any reason why you lowered the best-selling Spanish-language album in the United States to low importance for Latin music? jona^(talk) 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I know, importance is not based on sales or charts, but on the relevance of the topic within the Wikiproject's field, i.e. Latin music. This album is not mentioned in a sigle Latin music guide or general purpose encyclopedia I have ever read, unlike Selena herself, who is definitely a high importance article. Mid-importance articles fall within the general knowledge of people interested in Latin stuff (Caifanes, Simón Díaz, Fania Records). Obviously this album is not at the same level; only fans of Selena know its name regardless of how much it sold 20 years ago. Anyway, I guess low is too harsh, so by looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment, mid could be fair. Cheers. Neodop (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Neodop: According to the project page you directed me, they do consider sales to determine the importance of albums. The fact that you even say that this album was not mention in any guide or encyclopedia tells me that you didn't bother to read or even search for any evidence of importance; The Latino History and Culture Encyclopedia, Southern Music/American Music, Latin Music: Musicians, Genres, and Themes, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Postnationalism in Chicana/o Literature and Culture, 1,000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die, Mapping Tejana Epistemologies: Contemporary (re)constructions of Tejana , and many more but I'm not going to list every single encyclopedia. jona^(talk) 15:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)