Talk:Sale el Sol/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. Longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: No issues.
• Reference check: 3 issues, all with webcite archives availiable

1. Top 50 Albums 2011 (info) [promusicae.es] - 404 ( 2 different dates? Does it matter)
2. Top 20 - Lista de Radio (info) [promusicae.org] - 404

 Fixed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Several issues, mostly prose related to fix.

• " released on October 19, 2010, by Epic Records. Released following " makes the wording awkward
• "The title track was released" - no surprise links on title track. And I think it should be defined better because it is the album's name.

I removed the linking, but I was unable to understand what you meant by the latter remark. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The album was positively received by most music critics and was praised for its distinguished and unusual nature." - Cite
• "which soon became a worldwide hit.[9]" remove "soon"
• "She decided to experiment with merengue music on the album, saying "I grew up listening to merengue—that was a big part of my life, and I was missing it", " - End the sentence here with the cite and drop "and thus" for "Shakira traveled to the Dominican Republic to work with Dominican songwriter and record producer El Cata, resulting in songs like "Loca" and "Rabiosa"." and cite that. And do not forget to fix the "travelled" typo.
• "Sale el Sol is considered to be Shakira's return to her "roots" and is a "fusion between rock and pop heavily influenced from Latino and Colombian music".[14] Shakira said there are three "directions" of Sale el Sol: a romantic one, a "very rock and roll" one, and a "Latino, tropical" one." I do not like how this is straight from the lead.

I have done some rewording. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " So it’s (the album has) got songs that are very intense, very romantic"." Sic for it's at the very least.
• " This direction appears on ballads" wording
• "rmer Shakira delivers "sad, emotional, and heartfelt vocals".," period to a comma must be fixed.
• " while in the latter she singes "simply over solo piano and strings"." - typo "singes" and why is this in quotes?

Oh well it was taken directly from the source. But still I paraphrased it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ""beats all U2-inspired arena rockers at their own game"." Opinion needs attribution.
• "Merengue is recognised as the national music of the Dominican Republic "that reflected the blending of Spanish and African cultural influences", and is characterised by the use of the accordion and the percussion instrument tambora.[2" Should have been discussed long ago. More typos with "recognised" and "characterised" - More British words in a clearly American English article.

I have made some moves and changes. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the title track is composed of "evocative and hopeful" lyrics," Attribute who said this.
• " It was sent for digital download to the iTunes Store on the same day.[" - wording.
• "It was well received by music critics, who complimented the inclusion of merengue music on the recording." cite.

I removed all instances of critical review since they make the article seem bloated. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "e Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas and the Productores de Música de España.[36] In Shakira's native country Colombia, it was certified diamond by the Asociación Colombiana de Productores de Fonogramas." English meanings might be night to add.

I modified the titles of the orgs to their English names, using the FL List of music recording certifications. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It received generally positive reviews from music critics, and, similar to "Loca", was praised for its merengue influences." cite
• "It generated a favourable response from music critics, many of whom praised its fast pace." cite
• "The concert shows were well received" - well-recieved

Typo.

• "The tour was a bigger success worldwide, ranking at number 20 on Pollstar's 2011 "Top 25 Worldwide Tours" with a total gross of $53.2 million and ticket sales amounting up to 692,064" change "bigger" and reword the end.
• "Sale el Sol was included in AllMusic's "Favorite Albums of 2010" year-end list.[93] The album also appeared on the website's "Favorite Latin Albums of 2010" list.[94]" - combining these sentence would reduce the choppyness.
• "calledSale el Sol a" needs a space.
• "Allison Stewart opined that the album" word choice on opined.

Instead of just stating the problem, please try to suggest a solution too. I don't mean to dictate how to conduct a review, nor am I saying you're a bad reviewer because you conduct a detailed and accurate review, but at times I really have to rub my head because I can't figure out what I should do since there is just a problem in front of me and no suggestion --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Opined is a really awkward word choice that breaks the flow of the word for many readers, and it might be applicable to WP:SAY and that is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch which is part of the GA criteria. What is the problem with "wrote", "said", "stated"? "Opined" carries a snobbish tone - just say the word aloud - that drastically alters the tone of the article and it does so unintentionally. If you disagree with me, by all means, DO so. Many of the issues I present are not going to make or break the review and are more suggestions on improving the prose and flow of the writing - but I am still quite a ways from being a 1A] master. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with you on the "opined" part and I never said you were wrong. I would have really appreciated it if you had given me an example of how the sentence can be written. What I do appreciate are your reviews and the problems you point, I only said I'd appreciate more if you also gave suggestions or examples. I'm sorry if I struck a wrong chord here. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " charted for a long period of 55 and 54 weeks, respectively." - remove "long period"

 Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that covers some of the issues with the prose, please do a thorough review of the text and copy edit it some more please. Now I will go into the reliable source matter.

1. Ref 7 is a blog. Reuters blog or not.

After some rewording I  Removed it --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Ref 17 is Aol Radio Blog.

I realised the blog was just supplementing facts already proven by the other sources. Hence,  Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they do that, thanks for going the extra mile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Same with 21.
2. Ref 35 is a Facebook posting - please replace it.
3. Ref 53 is also.
4. Ref 60 is no different.

The facebook sources are all right since they're from the official AMPROFON page, and currently the organisation uploads all the certifications on their facebook page only. And I believe the usage of the official source will ocmply with Wikipedia's guidelines of using facebook as a "reliable source" (here). Moreover, the usage of the AMPROFON facebook page has been discussed over here.

A good argument - very well. It may not be ideal, but it is reliable and verified. So that's perfectly acceptable.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Ref 95 is a LA Times blog.

The rest seem to be alright. The blogs bring up the question of reliable sourcing, so please make an argument for each of them and in the case of the Facebook postings, please try and find the statements on an official website. Placing on hold for fixes.

 Done all, except the facebook one as per argument above --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'll pass it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.