Talk:She Wolf (album)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 19:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This just in: LazyBastardGuy undertakes a review of an encyclopedia article based on a Shakira album. Stay tuned.

Reporting live from the English Wikipedia, LazyBastardGuy will make it look like he's actually doing something and start with the easy stuff - article stability, image and sound permissions, and sourcing:
 * Album cover: Everything seems fine here.
 * Wyclef Jean on guitar: Everything seems fine here.
 * Two song samples are of sufficient duration not to be copyright infringements.
 * Actually there were four earlier, but I though that was a bit excessive so I removed "Gypsy" and "Give It Up to Me". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't be too careful...  Lazy Bastard  Guy  04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Shakira on tour: Everything seems fine here.
 * Shakira on tour, number the-next-one: Everything seems fine here.
 * Sourcing: 155 sources? Not bad. A couple of concerns:
 * I suppose I could go either way on using Shakira's website as a source.
 * SHakira's website has mainly been used to source tour dates, and about the main composition and all. It hasn't been used for purposes of puffery, such as "She Wolf was a hit" or "kicks hard as a mule". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine then.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Songfacts.com is not, to my knowledge, a reliable source. There is nothing on the page to suggest it is official or authoritative in any way. Suggest finding a reliable alternative that complies with WP guidelines.
 * Even I thought of that, and I had fixed an auspicious date to remove the source, but I forgot. :( I'll do it now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Source 54 acceptable. Since it's only appended to one fact, which also has another citation on it, you can just get rid of this one.
 * --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Setlist.fm is a wiki. Its use is prohibited.
 * Replaced. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything else seems fine.
 * Article stability: Everything seems fine here.

Further developments in the She Wolf album article review happened today. LazyBastardGuy, reporting live from the English Wikipedia, has more.

"...lowest-charting record in nearly a decade." Sounds a wee bit informal. Try, "...lowest-charting record since <>." Terms like "nearly a decade" should be avoided because they tend to be interchangeable with terms such as, "in over five years" and what not; if an actual figure is on hand we should use it.
 * Lead
 * The second and third paragraphs should be transposed.
 * I think "internationally" is a bit too US-centric; like any country that isn't the US is "international" (and I'm an American saying that too). I think "elsewhere" would be much much better.
 * "Topping charts" sounds informal. Try "reaching #1 on various charts" or something like that.
 * "Did It Again" needs a space after it and before the parentheses
 * "international markets" this is wrong on so many levels.
 * "released specifically for in"


 * Background and production
 * "Super-hit" is informal.
 * "$100 million" which country's dollars?
 * "giant" --> "company"
 * "deem her as the fourth"
 * "diverse producers" sounds awkward. Try, "a diverse group of producers".
 * "collaborators includ"
 * "When asked of the reason behind the album's electronic influences," --> "When asked why the album had electronic influences,"
 * Remove "by saying that", and put a comma in there.
 * It doesn't really matter who else used the studio in the past, so you can cut all that out. Put the recording location at the end of the first sentence so it reads, "...entitled She Wolf, at Compass Point Studios in the Bahamas."

I notice the first paragraph follows a formula. "This song is influenced by such and such genres. Its lyrics talk of certain things. It was written by its writers and produced by its producers. (where applicable) A Spanish-language version was also included on the album." This formula is a very boring, monotone way to read, and extends to the other two paragraphs as well, with no logical reason to break paragraphs because they're all this way, covering too many different ideas at once. Here are a few articles I would suggest looking at to see how it can be done better:
 * Songs and repertoire
 * In Utero (album)
 * Bleach (album)
 * Nevermind
 * Zooropa

I'm suggesting these because there is a way to organize and collate all the information in this section without it dwelling too much on the particulars of a song's meaning while making it very easy to read. It should start with the influence the producers had on the production process, the overall vibe (or vibes, as the case may be) of the album, and then go into succinct, brief discussions of each song's lyrics, grouping similar ones together as much as possible. I almost can't learn anything from this section as it is because my brain goes numb with how it's currently presented. Also, avoid completely reiterating in prose form all the songwriter and producer information that's already presented three sections below in list form, where it should be. Unfortunately, this will require so much more work than the GA process can allow time for. I would suggest calling for a peer review and asking others for input.

Ultimately, the jury gave the verdict that the article did not pass inspection. The judge declared the article's greatest weak spot to be "Songs and repertoire", as it requires extensive rewriting before it can be reviewed again. The judge also encourages the nominator to address these issues and work on them until the article is in a decent state for review which, as he notes, is not far away. Reporting live from the English Wikipedia, I'm  Lazy Bastard  Guy  04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall...


 * I will fix these issues and look into the matter. Thank you for your input and I will surely re-nominate it once it gets better. I think a Ga fail once in awhile is good to keep you in check :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)