# Talk:The Mambo Kings

Image:Mambokings.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Mambo Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 02:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll start the review shortly.  MathewTownsend (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I have made some relatively small copy edits to the article.[1]
Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Mambo Kings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310002609/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/category_year/637 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/category_year/637
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Typically, soundtracks don't get their own article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is the only grounds, then oppose, as soundtrack albums are common; see, for example, the few thousand listed at  Category:Soundtrack albums by year. Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)