Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shakira discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Shakira discography[edit]

Shakira discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list after revamping, rewriting, and restructuring it completely. Focusing on the topic of Shakira's discography, the list includes the peak chart positions and certifications of the various releases by the Colombian artist. I have made the list in accordance to the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE and it is similar in style to various other featured lists, like Madonna albums discography, Beyoncé discography, and Robbie Williams discography. Thank you WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

  • The picture of Shakira needs alternative text.
  • There are some external links that need to be corrected.
  • I think it is confusing how Magia and Peligro are considered studio albums and promotional albums in the introduction. I would drop the term promotional album in the article and treat them as just studio albums, so it is consistent with other Shakira articles.
  • I see "number one" for Pies Descalzos and "#131" for Dónde Están los Ladrones?; I suggest writing out the word throughout instead of occasionally using the number sign.
  • It is probably worth mentioning that the Billboard 200 is the U.S. Billboard 200 when you first mention the chart.
  • "Eight of the eleven tracks on the album's" should read as "Eight of the eleven tracks on the album".
  • I would note that the Top Latin Albums chart is a Billboard component chart.
  • I see the article shifting from "US" to "U.S."; I would pick one style to use throughout the article.
  • Sale el Sol is not her fourth studio album, isn't it her ninth overall?
  • There is no mention of Shakira in the introduction.
  • I would organize the references in columns of "30em".
  • The "Other appearances" section is unsourced.

WikiRedactor (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should wikilink "signature song" when mentioning "Ojos Así".
  • You're missing a quotation mark on "Underneath Your Clothes".
  • "It was a success in the United States too, where it shipped more than a million copies and was certified platinum." should read something like "It was similarly successful in the United States, where it sold more than one million copies and was certified platinum." (In my eyes at least, songs don't ship so much as they sell, and I think one million is a touch more clear.)
  • The note for "Sing" by Annie Lennox is not working.
Oh I forgot to remove it. Removed now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiRedactor: Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Decodet
Resolved comments from decodet. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes, the Bubbling Under information is unsourced.
  • I'd remove the "peak chart positions" column in the Promotional singles section, since none of those songs have charted.
  • In the references, you need to put the language of the sources if they are not in English. For instance, refs 53-56;
  • Also in the references, the dates shifts from "YYYY-MM-DD" to "Day Month, Year" to "Month Day, Year". You need to pick one style only.
  • Ref 1 needs title author publisher work etc.
  • There are some issues with work and publisher in several references. They are two different things. Billboard example: work is Billboard and publisher is Prometheus Global Media. You need to visit website by website and check the correct publisher and fix most of the references.
  • There are also some overlinking in the references section.

This was just a quick look at the article. I'll take a more detailed look in a few hours when I have time. decodet. (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, sorry, the article looks so much better the way it is now! I have some comments though:

  • Refs 29, 102, 104, 111, 116, 117, 118, etc, are definitely unreliable. How is a picture posted on Facebook any reliable?
Yes indeed the AMPROFON facebook photos are not unreliable. 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, as Erick pointed out. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I were not aware of this discussion, thanks for pointing me out. I believe it would be fine, but then there is no Mexican peak positions on the table (AMPROFON is for Mexico, right?) so it shouldn't be there. decodet. (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I removed the AUT chart and added the MEX chart for the singles --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we are supposed to only add certifications of the countries listed on the table. So we can't have Swedish certifications on the singles table for instance, since we don't have the Swedish peak positions.
Yes thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the Swedish certification. However, I have not removed the Colombian certs in the albums table since it is her home country, and Colombian chart positions are extremely difficult to find. That exception fine I hope? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's no problem with that since it's her home country! decodet. (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "La La La (Brazil 2014)" also a single? According to its page, it was sent to Italian radio and had digital releases in some places...
"La La La (Brazil 2014)" is just a reworked version of "Dare (La La La)", hence it is listed under that original name. Moreover, most record charts combine sales of both "Dare (La La La)" and "La La La (Brazil 2014" and list it as "Dare (La La La)". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it awkward that record charts are combining sales of those two songs, because they are so different! Billboard is so weird, they consider Kesha's Sleazy 2.0 remix a different song to the original Sleazy but consider Dare and La La La the same song even though the lyrical content is so divergent. Well, I believe it's still worth it putting a note explaining that! decodet. (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point you raised, that the two songs are very different. Unlike the Spanish versions of Shakira's songs, which just change the lyrics and carry the same beat, "La La lA (Brazil 2014)" is pretty much a departure from "Dare". I have added a slash. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

decodet. (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All my comments have been resolved and I believe the article is now featured list-level. Congratulations! decodet. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: and @Decodet: : There has been a massive mistake. A user untimely restored the old version of the page and removed my new edits. This is very embarrassing and I have notified the editor about his/her really careless revert. Kindly look at the new page please --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Magiciandude
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, can't believe what happened with the whole reversion thing. It's ridiculous. Well here are my starting comments:
  • For Mexico, link to Top 100 Mexico. AMPROFON is just the chart provider just like Billboard.
  • It turns out, Pies Descalzos may have been first released in 1995 in Colombia. (Source).
Indeed I checked another source and you are right. I have removed the US release and changed it to the Colombian release (6 October 1995).
  • I'm surprised you didn't make any mention of La Tortura having the record for most weeks at #1 on the Hot Latin Songs.
Ah thanks for pointing that out to me. Added that
  • WP:DISCOGSTYLE discourages using certifications from countries not listed in the charts.
Yes thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the Swedish certification. However, I have not removed the Colombian certs in the albums table since it is her home country, and Colombian chart positions are extremely difficult to find. That exception fine I hope? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for Colombia, but what about the other countries with certifications like Argentina? And while Colombia does have a singles chart, I think we can pull an exception here.
  • No worldwide sales available for any of the albums?
None from reliable sources like IFPI and Nielsen at least. If you can find some I'll be grateful --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to what WikiRedactor said about "Waka Waka", the RIAA certified it for digital downloads, not shipping, per source so digital downloads needs to be mentioned somewhere.
Yes that has been amended
  • Why are you using the Latin certification for MTV Unplugged instead of the standard certification? 4x Platinum (Latin) was 400,000 units and standard gold is 500,000 so you should use the standard one here instead.
    • Whooops, disregard that, I didn't notice it says video longform.
  • More to come... Erick (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job WonderBoy1998! Erick (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Support Looks great overall, no issues found. Simon (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "Her first two studio albums Magia and Peligro, released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993, respectively, performed poorly and had low sales"..... I think this would read better as "Her first two studio albums, Magia and Peligro, were respectively released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993. They performed poorly and had low sales"..... let's also give a range for such sales
  • "After a break from her career, Shakira found success" → "Shakira later found success"
  • "Like Pies Descalzos, it spawned numerous singles, including its 'signature track' 'Ojos Así'"..... I don't think we should note that it spawned that many singles for one album and not do the same for another. Instead just make note that "Ojos Así" is from Dónde Están los Ladrones?
  • "sales began to dip"..... began to decline

Overall, looking pretty good. Just a few concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I've addressed the comments --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prism
  • "becoming one of the best-selling singles worldwide" remove one of
Removing one of makes the sentence "Four of her singles, "Whenever, Wherever", "Hips Don't Lie", "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)", and "Loca", have achieved sales in excess of five million units, becoming best-selling singles worldwide" - THis just doesn't sound right since it would seem like these four are the only best sellers.
  • "thirteen" → 13 (per MOS)
  • "hit" sounds really NPOV
"Hit" is often used to simply refer to singles that performed well in charting or simply charted. It is like a milder version of "success"
  • What makes Eil.com and CDandLP.com high-quality RSs?
These sites are one of the few ones that cover a lot of release dates of really obscure singles. I have crosschecked on the other few sources available and it would seem these dates are correct. I hope they can be allowed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor comments, I have nothing to add to this. I support it based on meticulous sourcing, well-formatted tables and great prose. Keep up the good work.pedro | talk 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the lead a bit, but I can see no reason to not promote this now. Consensus is clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Shakira_discography/archive1&oldid=1184792226"