Talk:She Wolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article She Wolf has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star She Wolf is the main article in the She Wolf series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to "She Wolf (album)". —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)



She Wolf (Shakira album)She WolfWP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ALBUMSMS (Talk|Contributions) 04:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Page She Wolf is now a 6-way disambig page. And see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakira's third English studio album. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this is the only album by any artist to be titled "She Wolf," shouldn't the article be simply titled "She Wolf (album)"? Stopitplease92 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, it should be "She Wolf (album)", since it's the only album with this title. Armando.O talk Ev 3K 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It won't let me move it for some reason? Hmm. Stopitplease92 (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the primary topic for She Wolf. dissolvetalk 05:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to She Wolf (album) but not to She Wolf. (album) is sufficient disambiguator among all similar terms (and parallels the (song) entry). But I don't see evidence that this album is the primary topic for this phrase. Although it meets notability, its notability does not appear to overwhelm that of other entries (especially assuming "the buzz of future release" is highly susceptible to flash-in-the-pan/recentism--too soon to expect stronger evidence). Even the song is already released and probably has more press reviews than the album. I dislike disambiguation based solely on capitalization and similar typography because it assumes readers will know the correct way when they search (for example, "She wolf" (or she-wolf?) is a dictionary phrase, and the movies have punctuation to find them). DMacks (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Album Cover[edit]

The Current Album cover that is been put, isn't the actual ALBUM cover rather, the Singles cover of same name - as per my research. I tried a lot to put the picture - the actual album cover is the one with a Bloody-Paw Sign, but failed to find one in digital format. I propose to comment editors whether to keep this picture until the real one is put. – DebPokeEditList ‖ 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I have given a (generally accepted) reliable source on the description page which is amazon.co.uk. If by the "real" cover, you mean this one I think that's just a placeholder image, since it has no artist name on it, nor title, and has a "Subject to change" disclaimer. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The current album cover - IS NOT the official album cover, it's not been confirmed by Shakira. Yes, amazon and other sites do put that - but here's the proof.

shakira took those pictures, BEFORE she went to france last month.

Yet she claimed HERSELF - that she took pictures for the album cover AT THE FRENCH TRIP. it cannot be the album cover.

Catsmartie (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) – DebPokeEditList

Ok, feel free to remove it. No objections here, as long as you're sure. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

i suggest that the current cover be left until there is an official announcement e.g. on shakira's official website or until another alternative cover appears online. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

This is the cover - http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4013&Itemid=206 Enjoy Stopitplease92 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the original She Wolf File:Http://funnypix.freehostia.com/images/ILSA.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy12334 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

Amazon.com has listed the release dates for the US and Japanese import as October 6 and October 20, respectively.

The links are: http://www.amazon.com/She-Wolf-Shakira/dp/B002LIKMB6/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1250751660&sr=1-7 http://www.amazon.com/She-Wolf-Shakira/dp/B002IUBFT0/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1250751672&sr=1-9

I don't know if amazon.com is a valid source for this article so I wasn't sure if I should edit them in or not. Stopitplease92 (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Epic Records Store the album is pushed back to November 17. Link is: http://store.epicrecords.com/She-Wolf/A/B002LIKMB6.htm

Article sources[edit]

Nothing from the Recording & production part of the article is sourced. What do u think we should do with it? most of it is based on roumors. (MariAna Mimi 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Album pushed back[edit]

The album will be released on USA in November 17th according to Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/She-Wolf-Shakira/dp/B002LIKMB6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1253471852&sr=1-1

But what about this version? -- 208.65.190.99 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Retailers are not realiable. Each retailer can take any release date after the one established by the publisher. I would approve a primary source for the release date. But what Amazon states in their site is the date when THEY are releasing it, not the official release date. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is more than once source stating that the release date is october 13. until there is official confirmation otherwise i think it should be left as this. Plus i know its not the most credible thing but virtually all albums are released on a monday in the uk and always a day later (tuesday) in the US. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm here again (the one that put the amazon link), and I got you another website where it says that She Wolf will be released on November 17th. That site is Epic Records' store http://store.epicrecords.com/She-Wolf/A/B002LIKMB6.htm

Nowhere on Epic records does it say that.(Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

As stated avobe, retailers (even Epic's own retailer) may have release dates that differ from the official release date. Albums, when shipped to retailers, are usually labeled "NOT FOR SALE BEFORE MM-DD-YYYY", or some other similar disclaimer. But that doesn't mean all retailers in every corner of the world are going to release said album on the date established by the label. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) every time you comment. Thank you. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon Secada, Miami Strings[edit]

as it clearly says in the source given, Jon Secada didnt participate in the writting of Good Stuff and Did It Again, he was a backup singer (thats what Sanger(in) means). and the miami strings werent producers, they just played strings on the song. some other errors in the writting credits as well, as mario inchausti and Olgui chirino are backup singers, not writters. check the source given.

I will investigate this and correct as/where necessary.(Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Table Writers[edit]

Shakira isn't added in the WRITERS table. Confusing the writers with the producers. Shakira wrote every song except gypsy in which she co-writed.

In Argentina the album came up in October 13, due to the fact that the previous day was Holiday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.235.146 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Long Time is not the 4th single of SHE WOLF[edit]

In Latin America and Spain, today is the "April Fools' Day", so the article of LOS 40 saying that Long Time feat. Fergie will be the fourth single of She Wolf is a joke.--HC 5555 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Release History section[edit]

There is a problem with this section. Kindly fix it. Thank you ~~yeah~~ 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansal94 (talkcontribs)

Z100[edit]

The link goes to a disambig. Correct it, idiots. --213.130.252.119 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales[edit]

Does anyone know the total amount of copies that have been sold worldwide? And have these sales been disappointing or is this how her albums usually sell; or is it too early to tell? Rcr18 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

there is your answer http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shakira-to-release-special-us-edition-of-her-hit-album-she-wolf-70361922.html#linktopagetop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.97.46.97 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MiguelRob, 21 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}


MiguelRob (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Empty request.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

album sales & uk certifactions[edit]

The album has sold 3 million copies worldwide on the spanish wiki it claims to have sold 4 million copies. Also on the spanish wiki it has a source that in the ul the album has been certified platnium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.58.80 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. I don't see any reason to disambiguate by gender; any further dabs can be made with hatnotes. Miniapolis 20:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)



– In regards to the album, She Wolf the album was viewed 40,348 times in the last 90 days; she-wolf the animal was viewed 2563 times in the same time period. In regards to the song, Shakira's "She Wolf" was viewed 11,432 times; the 1997 song was viewed 487 times. In both cases, Shakira's material is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, at the very least with the spelling of "She Wolf" without a hyphen. The album doesn't need the parenthetical disambiguation, and the song is the more prominent of the two and doesn't need to be further clarified with her name. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If you feel the Jessie Mae Hemphill album is notable (which you haven't even provided a bit of evidence of), please, feel free to create the article and prove otherwise.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Status, there's no need for me to do this, notability exists in Google Books not in Wikipedia, so notability does not depend on creating break out forks from existing articles. The notability of Jessie Mae Hemphill isn't in question, the importance of her debut album is already documented and footnoted in the Jessie Mae Hemphill article's discography, breaking out that album and pasting up a cover jpg will not increase or decrease the notability of the album in print sources. Again I do think that the current title She Wolf (album) is ambiguous disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support album, oppose song. I was actually thinking about requesting this the other day. The Shakira album appears to be the primary topic of the term She Wolf, however, with other songs called "She Wolf", I think that "Shakira song" is just fine.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The significance of female gray wolves, Canis lupus, prevents any recent pop culture from claiming PRIMACY for the terms, particular orthography notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the album, not sure about the song. The case is made that the album is the clear primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 14:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restore redirect[edit]

Re proposal to restore She Wolf from grey wolf back to She Wolf (disambiguation):

  • Support proposal of 65.92.180.137, "She wolf" should go to "grey wolf" (Canis lupus) as the dominant wolf species, but "She Wolf" capitalized should still be going to the she-wolf (disambiguation) list with the Giovanni Verga novel and Jackson Pollock painting etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with In ictu oculi, with she-wolf (disambiguation) having a prominent top line link, and top right Wiktionary link referring to the animal. Ambiguous terms should go to useful disambiguation pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support restoring the redirect; along with other proposals from IIO. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:She Wolf/GA1. 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... LazyBastardGuy 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. LazyBastardGuy 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 is not acceptable. Since it's only appended to one fact, which also has another citation on it, you can just get rid of this one.
minus Removed --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.

Lead
  • The second and third paragraphs should be transposed.
"...lowest-charting record in nearly a decade."

Sounds a wee bit informal. Try, "...lowest-charting record since <<whichever album was the last to chart low>>." 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.

  • 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 included"
  • "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."
Songs and repertoire

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:

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, very 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 at all costs 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.

Overall...

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 LazyBastardGuy 04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:She Wolf/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Woo! Let's finally make She Wolf a good topic (I hope). I won't be able to do this in less than two days probably, and tomorrow will be a really busy day for me. Anyway, let's get started. prism 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I'm grateful that someone took the review at least! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Step 1: General overview[edit]

The dablink pointing out to She-wolf (disambiguation) is actually meant to go to a disambig page. As for BPI, I have corrected it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Checklinks does not denote any 'problematic' link.
  • Original research: some sentences that are not sourced are addressed below.

Step 2: Prose[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Move reception section to above the singles paragraph.
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since it's always repeating "released", change the first sentence to "The album spawned four singles.";
I have made some tweaks.
  • However, the album did not perform well in the United States. It debuted at number fifteen on the US Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 89,000 copies. → "However, the album did not perform well in the United States, debuting at number fifteen on the US Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 89,000 copies".
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "gold in countries like France and the United Kingdom" → "gold in a multitude of countries, including France and the United Kingdom" (multitude since it was certified Gold in 11 countries).
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Background and production[edit]

  • "which was recorded at the Compass Point Studios in the Bahamas" → This could falsely lead the reader to think the album was entirely recorded there. I've just checked my She Wolf CD booklet and it states the album was recorded at a lot of places, not only at Compass Point Studios. Either remove this part, or write something like "which was, among other places,<ref>She Wolf liner notes</ref>, at the Compass Point Studios in the Bahamas.
I took the latter approach. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You didn't add the liner notes reference though, that is needed, since the source only addresses that specific studio. prism 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "As executive producers, Shakira and Amanda Ghost enlisted" → this is written exactly like it is in the lead section, could you reword this a bit?
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Sam Endicott, musician and lead singer of American post-punk band The Bravery who co-composed the title track of the album along with John Hill, explained how they both began working with Shakira, saying [...]" → the part that explains who is Endicott is extremely long. Why not: "Sam Endicott, musician and lead singer of [...] The Bravery, explained how [quote, etc.] Endicott and Hill co-composed the album's title track."
 Done I have made changes but in a slightly different manner. Basically I broke up the sentence --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The second (and last) paragraph is just... too big. Can you break it in two new paragraphs? prism 01:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on some tips I had been given in some other review, I have done some splitting. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Musical styles and lyrics[edit]

  • "The title track is a primary example of the electronic-styled production" → remove primary, "primarily" is used in the beginning of the section and it kind of sounds like a repetition.
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "that she wrote that while "fantasizing about fleas [...]" → substitute "that" with "those lyrics", and between 'while' and 'fantasizing', put "actually".
 Done the first part. However, I believe we cannot add "actually" since it isn't something apparent and might not be what the singer was trying to convey. We can add words in quotes that are obvious and don't change the tone of the quote. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • " ""She Wolf" is the woman " → "'She Wolf' is the woman"
 Done I did this article a long time back when I was just starting out, so it's bound to have some embarrassing mistakes hehehe --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The sentence explaining the album title is out of place here. Move it to background section. prism 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Release and promotion[edit]

Singles[edit]
  • "It was well received by music critics, who praised its disco influences and unusual lyrics." → Needs, at least, one citation.
plus Added --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "tt peaked" → typo
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "component charts" → It doesn't specify what chart do the component charts derive from. Maybe "component charts of the Billboard Hot 100"?
 Done by removing the "component" part. I don't remember putting that there. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reference linking to IMVDb: you'll have to substitute that, it's certainly not reliable and it probably won't be that hard to find another website that discusses the music video concept.
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ""Did It Again" was released as the second single off the album on 16 October 2009. The single was not officially released in the US market, where it was substituted by "Give It Up To Me", the third single off the album." → ""Did It Again" was released as the second single off the album worldwide on 16 October 2009, excluding the United States, where it was substituted by "Give It Up to Me".".
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The song was met with positive reviews from music critics and was complimented for its expressive songwriting." → Needs a citation.
plus Added --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "It peaked at number 29 on the Billboard Hot 100 and at number 23 on the Pop Songs components charts." → "components"? + shouldn't this be written like "It peaked at number 29 on the Billboard Hot 100, and on its component chart Pop Songs, at number 23.
I just removed that "component" part. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The song generated a positive response from music critics, many of whom praised its acoustic-styled production." → Again, needs a citation.
plus Added --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Commercially, the single was a success. It charted inside the top 10 in countries like" → Could you merge these sentences?
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "on the US Billboard Hot 100 Chart" → Chart being wikilinked and with a capital 'C' is unnecessary; plus nothing about the Hot 100 should be linked, since it was just linked on the previous paragraph.
 Done like I said, a very old work of mine, so a lot of mistakes. I have corrected some more overlinking problems --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "An accompanying music video for the song was directed by Jaume de Laiguana and stars Spanish professional tennis player Rafael Nadal as Shakira's love interest." → "An accompanying music video for the song, directed by Jame de Laiguana, stars Spanish professional tennis player Rafael Nadal as Shakira's love interest.".
Prism your English is truly good! You needn't believe that it's not that good. It is, trust me. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you!
  • You'll have to remove the IMVDb source in the Gypsy sentence too. prism 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
minus Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception[edit]

  • Italicise every instance of She Wolf.
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Commercial performance[edit]

  • "peaked at number four on the Ö3 Austria Top 40 chart, staying on the chart for a total of 15 weeks." → "peaked at number four on the Ö3 Austria Top 40 chart, where it stayed for a total of 15 weeks"
I'm not sure if this should be done. It makes it seem as though it stayed at number four for 15 weeks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really like how the countries' chart positions are addressed. It really sticks with the same formula, everytime: "In [country], the album entered the [chart] at number [?] and peaked at number [?], staying on the chart for [?] weeks". Could you reword them a bit? It's kind of boring to read, to be honest...
 Done This might take some time. Before the review started, I was thinking of rewording the paragraph, but in the end by laziness got me. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Step 3: References[edit]

  • R19 → Should have Digital Spy and Hearst Magazines UK (not Hearst Corporation) linked.
I assume you meant Ref no. 9? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • R22 → Digital Spy is italicised; shouldn't be. Don't wikilink any of the parameters...
  • R43 → Billboard is wikilinked, and not italicised.
  • R84 → Something appears to be wrong there...
Fixed all

Step 4: Final corrections[edit]

Musical styles and lyrics[edit]

  • "In "Mon Amour", she wishes that her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend have a terrible vacation in Paris and are eaten alive by "French fleas". Shakira stated that she wrote those lyrics while "fantasizing about fleas in France eating them both alive"" → This still looks a bit odd in my eyes... I don't think the last part is actually necessary.
minus Removed last part --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Commercial performance[edit]

  • "national albums chart" → "its album chart"
 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Step 5: List checking[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!! prism 17:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Woooo! Going to nominate for Good Topic! THANK YOu By the way, Legobot posted on my talk page saying that my nomination failed and I got so worried. But then I saw this! GLAD --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:59, 1 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on She Wolf. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on She Wolf. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)