Elixir (perfume) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elixir (perfume) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs) 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See below. | |||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is neutral in the sense that it reflects the sources that exist, but there is a lot of quoting from Shakira (especially in the
"scent and packaging" section), and much of it is based on primary sources or others that have effectively copied the primary sources. The result is that the article is indistinguishable from an ad. I think it needs to be toned down a little to make it more encyclopaedic, particularly by removing a few of the Shakira quotes.
| |||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||||
7. Overall assessment. | See below. |
Hi WonderBoy, the article is looking better, so thanks for the changes you made. You asked why I picked this to review. It's because I like perfume. :)
I have a concern that there just aren't enough sources to get this to GA. There are no fragrance review websites that are reliable sources for WP (that I know of), so we're left with company press releases and articles summarizing them. That means the article is effectively an ad.
When you're writing about a famous perfume such as Chanel No. 5, there's a whole history you can delve into, but with something like this there's just not much to say, apart from listing the manufacturer, ingredients, appearance of bottle, inspiration, sales and reviews, and there are no reliable sources for the last two. Quite a bit of the language is adspeak, e.g. the newer perfume "is meant to display a more adventurous side of Shakira."
Also, some of the material taken from the company or from Shakira isn't conveyed quite accurately. For example, you write that it can be worn during the day and at night, but you don't explain. Shakira said: "It's very feminine, elegant, and young, and it's fresh enough to use during the day and chic enough for the night." Those words would mean something to a wearer of perfume; not much, but something, so it's worth quoting her or paraphrasing accurately. Same with: "contains a very specific amount of 'sweetness'. Not clear what that means. She said: "a little sweetness, but just enough," which I think means not very sweet.
I think I would want to see an article that was more descriptive of the fragrance (and the bottle, spray, packaging, etc), something that a perfume lover could read to get a sense of what kind of perfume and experience this is. I think it might be worth you reading some of the reviews from users on fragrance review websites, picking out the key points, then re-reading the sources to make sure you highlight those key points (even if it means quoting Shakira!). What would someone who was considering wearing or buying this fragrance want to know?
Once you've done that, go through the article and make sure everything you've written means something, and that there's no repetition. Shorter is better if it's more meaningful. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This sounds as though they first planned to do something else, but Shakira took the idea further and looked at perfume instead. But the fragrance was the point of the partnership. [1] You could simply say:
SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"Eaux de toilette will be available in three sizes: 0.5 oz. for $17.50, 1 oz. for $29 and 1.7 oz. for $36." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, WonderBoy, I'm inclined to fail this. Even after the recent edits, there's too much of an advertising flavour to it (e.g., in Wikipedia's voice, that Shakira sought inspiration from the deserts of Morocco). It's worth bearing in mind that Shakira probably had little to no meaningful input into the development of the fragrance. The problem is that there aren't enough sources to flesh it out. The sources are either company websites or press releases, or secondary sources that have simply copied them or are quoting Shakira. There are no independent reviews that I can find, and none of the notable perfume blogs has discussed it. I see you've used at least one blog as a source, but I don't think it's one of the notable ones.
I can do one of three things: (1) fail it, which means you can immediately rejoin the queue, and the next reviewer might disagree with me; (2) leave it on hold for you to work on, but I'm unlikely to change my mind unless you find new sources and/or remove most of the material that's making it seem like an ad; or (3) leave this review open and ask for a second opinion. Which would you prefer? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this one. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: Several issues were found, nothing too hard, but this was overall and enjoyable read.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Elixir (perfume). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Elixir (perfume) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elixir (perfume) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs) 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See below. | |||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is neutral in the sense that it reflects the sources that exist, but there is a lot of quoting from Shakira (especially in the
"scent and packaging" section), and much of it is based on primary sources or others that have effectively copied the primary sources. The result is that the article is indistinguishable from an ad. I think it needs to be toned down a little to make it more encyclopaedic, particularly by removing a few of the Shakira quotes.
| |||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||||
7. Overall assessment. | See below. |
Hi WonderBoy, the article is looking better, so thanks for the changes you made. You asked why I picked this to review. It's because I like perfume. :)
I have a concern that there just aren't enough sources to get this to GA. There are no fragrance review websites that are reliable sources for WP (that I know of), so we're left with company press releases and articles summarizing them. That means the article is effectively an ad.
When you're writing about a famous perfume such as Chanel No. 5, there's a whole history you can delve into, but with something like this there's just not much to say, apart from listing the manufacturer, ingredients, appearance of bottle, inspiration, sales and reviews, and there are no reliable sources for the last two. Quite a bit of the language is adspeak, e.g. the newer perfume "is meant to display a more adventurous side of Shakira."
Also, some of the material taken from the company or from Shakira isn't conveyed quite accurately. For example, you write that it can be worn during the day and at night, but you don't explain. Shakira said: "It's very feminine, elegant, and young, and it's fresh enough to use during the day and chic enough for the night." Those words would mean something to a wearer of perfume; not much, but something, so it's worth quoting her or paraphrasing accurately. Same with: "contains a very specific amount of 'sweetness'. Not clear what that means. She said: "a little sweetness, but just enough," which I think means not very sweet.
I think I would want to see an article that was more descriptive of the fragrance (and the bottle, spray, packaging, etc), something that a perfume lover could read to get a sense of what kind of perfume and experience this is. I think it might be worth you reading some of the reviews from users on fragrance review websites, picking out the key points, then re-reading the sources to make sure you highlight those key points (even if it means quoting Shakira!). What would someone who was considering wearing or buying this fragrance want to know?
Once you've done that, go through the article and make sure everything you've written means something, and that there's no repetition. Shorter is better if it's more meaningful. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This sounds as though they first planned to do something else, but Shakira took the idea further and looked at perfume instead. But the fragrance was the point of the partnership. [1] You could simply say:
SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"Eaux de toilette will be available in three sizes: 0.5 oz. for $17.50, 1 oz. for $29 and 1.7 oz. for $36." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, WonderBoy, I'm inclined to fail this. Even after the recent edits, there's too much of an advertising flavour to it (e.g., in Wikipedia's voice, that Shakira sought inspiration from the deserts of Morocco). It's worth bearing in mind that Shakira probably had little to no meaningful input into the development of the fragrance. The problem is that there aren't enough sources to flesh it out. The sources are either company websites or press releases, or secondary sources that have simply copied them or are quoting Shakira. There are no independent reviews that I can find, and none of the notable perfume blogs has discussed it. I see you've used at least one blog as a source, but I don't think it's one of the notable ones.
I can do one of three things: (1) fail it, which means you can immediately rejoin the queue, and the next reviewer might disagree with me; (2) leave it on hold for you to work on, but I'm unlikely to change my mind unless you find new sources and/or remove most of the material that's making it seem like an ad; or (3) leave this review open and ask for a second opinion. Which would you prefer? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this one. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: Several issues were found, nothing too hard, but this was overall and enjoyable read.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Elixir (perfume). 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)