Wikipedia:Peer review/Loca (Shakira song)/archive1

Loca (Shakira song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is vital for WikiProject Shakira. This article, which is of High-Importance to the project, might be ready for a good article review and I just want to have it peer-tested before nominating it for a full GA review. Any problems to the article can be sorted out then.

Thanks, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First look by WikiRedactor

Introduction

Make sure "Loca" is written in quotations, I noticed a couple instances where it wasn't. - Done
- Also a question- should I put all the "Locas" that appear in review quotes in quotation marks too? For example- XYZ of RPQ site said, "Shakira's new song "Loca" is good"? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed you should.
" The single was not officially released in the United Kingdom and Australia, originally to be released digitally and as a CD single on 13 December 2010. The releases were both cancelled and no explanation has been given since." Is this particularly noteworthy information? That seems like something that could be mentioned in the Commercial Performance section. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really feeling the wording "became another big hit", perhaps something like "proved successful" instead? Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A music video was filmed for the song in August 2010 and was shot in Barcelona, Spain." to "Its accompanying music video was filmed in Barcelona, Spain in August 2010, and was released the following month." Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The sample is too big, try 64 kbps. It also needs to prove that it is fair use of non-free content.
- I couldn't find any 64kbps sample. Can you help with his? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure thing0!
    - You sure about the Spanish sample? I think readers of the English Wikipedia would appreciate the English sample more. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I noticed that after I uploaded, sorry! However, I tend to lean towards the Spanish version, since it is the original. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should mention the writers/producers more. - Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Billboard.com to "Billboard". Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

This section seems a bit quote-farmish; you should paraphrase most of these and quote the keywords. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I noticed some of the reviews were not reviews at all, but mere info about the song. I removed such reviews, the section is pretty condensed now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial reception

Pick one styling of peaks (number one or #1), but don't alternate with both. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Pole position" confused me a little bit, it might be more straight-forward if you write "top position". Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

"Longtime Shakira collaborator" to "Shakira's longtime collaborator". Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to know it was a Wednesday? Removed. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you italicizing artist's names?- I can't see anything italicized? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"About the video Shakira said" should be combined with last sentence like "to which Shakira commented". --> Had to remove that response since link was dead and couldn't find any replacement. Not sure if it was a response to the authority problems in the first place. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard needs to be italicized. Done
Some more quote-farming, paraphrase these reviews. Done

Live performances

The Sun Comes Out Tour is done, so it should be "was" part of the setlist. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lopez Tonight should be italicized. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"According to a YouTube clip" Remove that bit. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase quote. Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

Try formatting the certifications like the way they are in Britney (album) or Give It Up to Me, where the templates used show sales marks, too.

Can you please do this? I'm not good at this stuff at all. I almost messed up the entire section when I did last time. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

Done

Release history

Either add the labels or remove that heading in the table.

Can't get this. See my post on your talk page for further details. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

References

The references need work. You should list both the work and the publisher, and my preference is to write out the date instead of using shorthand. Done
We have several dead links to address, take a look at Toolserver to see which ones need work. - Basically, all the Billboard ones are dead, maybe the site underwent a big formatting. I'm fixing it. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "On the week of September 18, 2010 the song debuted at #40 on the Billboard Tropical Songs[14] and #1 on digital tropical charts with great selling of 6000+ downloads.[15] On the week of September 25, 2010 the song debuted at #31 on the Billboard Latin Songs.[16"- These links are dead. But I can't find replacements because I can't find the concerned chart histories. Can you please please help? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Billboard has been working with their new site layout, and I've noticed that a lot of older chart information doesn't show up anymore. However, the site is still in its beta phase, so I continue to link to the charts on their site with the expectation that they'll sort that out themselves.
    - Wouldn't that be a dead link as of now then? That may fail the GA criteria. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's never happened to me, my understanding was that a little lenience was acceptable because of their messy overhaul. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can provide Allmusic as an additional reference if you'd like.
        Oh, okay! And yeah, I gave Allmusic additional references just in case. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it! After addressing these issues, leave me a message on my talkpage and I'd be more than happy to take a look at the page then to see if there are additional things we can improve. Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second look by WikiRedactor

Great work, the page is in much better shape now! Just a few more areas to correct and you should be ready for a GAN: (Thanks and thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Try to move the references in the introduction into the body of the article, since it's just summarizing what people are about to read.

Oh you meant take the reference out from the lead and put them into the body! I read the opposite! oops... --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the song being recorded in Dominican Republic in the "Background and composition" section. Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Official versions" lacks sources right now, that needs to be addressed.

I don't think that section is even needed. Mostly all other GA class articles I saw have no section like this, including Give It Up To Me :P Shall I remove it?--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, any suggestions where I can find the refs?

It seems that we have a variety of remixes for the song, so I wouldn't remove that section. Try looking for iTunes remix EPs and Allmusic, they might have some information.

Tried, could only find the original versions (English and Spanish) sources. All other pages offering remixes were those cheap trashy virus-infiltrated sites. What to do? Who added this section? It's obvious that person knows where he got this info from. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess if there is no reputable source, we can't leave it in the article. Shouldn't be a huge deal to remove it. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references still need some work. There is one dead link remaining, and the others need to fix the work/publisher fields. Only printed works are italicized, the rest are in regular text, and the publisher needs to be added. For example, the iTunes Store publisher is Apple Inc., and the publisher for Billboard is Prometheus Global Media, etc. You'll need to look back at those sites and gather that information.

Working on this first. I think you italicized all the work entries, but work already displays in italics when saved. Work always displays the website cited and is an alias for website. See this- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Cite_web#Title .... Moving on to adding the publishers. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you put the italics in the work field, it makes it regular text and offsets the original formatting. This is what we have to do for several online sources, since many of them are not magazines.

But work is used for websites, not printed mags, so I think it's best they stay italicized. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've non italicized them again , so I think we should let it remain that way. And Toolserver isn't showing any dead link, So considering that it's

Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that the date formatting is consistent throughout, I see some varations. Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the titles of citations are not in all capitals. DoneWonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to take care of some charts information, I'll get to that shortly. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thing I noticed- the file which we have used is File:Shakira - Loca Ft Dizzee Rascal Preview.ogg, but when played it is the version ft. El Cata. Is there no way to rename a file? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think we can. I've tried looking for that before, but I couldn't find anything.

Well, seems like only the charts and the official versions need work now. Hahaha...the article is surely no where near a C class article now! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've finished the charts a few days ago, I just forgot to let you know. My apologies. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Magiciandude

If it's alright, I have a some feedback myself I would like to offer:

"The song has become Shakira's ninth number-one hit on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs and her thirteenth number 1 hit on the Latin Pop Songs, making her the second female artist with most number-one hits after Gloria Estefan (14) on the former and the female artist with most on the latter. According to Billboard, eight of the top 10 tracks on Billboard's Latin Digital Songs chart are Shakira's, including the number 1 "Loca" which sold 48,000 downloads, the highest-selling week ever for the chart. The single was not officially released in the United Kingdom and Australia, originally to be released digitally and as a CD single on December 13, 2010. The releases were both cancelled and no explanation has been given since." There's not a single reference here.

The person who put this info there in the first place gave a dead link for a ref. I can't find any replacements. Can you help? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Erick (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Somehow, I managed to do something. So it's

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources with a work parameter without a publisher parameter should just use a publisher parameter.

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About.com is not a reliable source and should be substituted.

Okay, I removed the Top 10 Shakira Songs About.com reference, which was used to cite the sentence "Recorded in the Dominican Republic, "Loca" is an interpretation of the artist El Cata's song "Loca Con Su Tiguere". What about the review reference one used in critical reception. Can it remain there? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it. I've been told by editors that About.com is not a reliable source and it should be avoided.

Oh, okay. I'll find a replacement. Thanks for informing this to me too!

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. My final suggestion is to add the song accolades received. The List of awards and nominations received by Shakira should help you with what the song was awarded and nominated for. Erick (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'll put that in the critical reception section.

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erick (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC) More on the way. Erick (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done guys! Any further suggestions before I nominate it for GA? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks all set to me. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, same here. Good job! Erick (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]