Talk:Elixir (perfume)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.	Extended content You could use some more commas in this sentence, or perhaps better still split it up: "Developed following her agreement with international fashion company Puig to create a line of beauty and personal care products and the release of her first fragrance S by Shakira and its successor S by Shakira Eau Florale, Elixir aims to capture Shakira's "most sensual and exotic side" and is classified as an oriental perfume." I have tweaked it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) A minor issue. I would rewrite this: "Two perfumers from Swiss fragrance manufacturer Givaudan, Alexandra Kosinski and Sonia Constant, collaborated with Elisabeth Vidal, a perfumer from Puig who also worked with Shakira on S by Shakira Eau Florale, to create the scent." And change it to: "Alexandra Kosinski and Sonia Constant, perfumers from Swiss fragrance manufacturer Givaudan, collaborated to create the scent with Elisabeth Vidal, a perfumer from Puig who also worked with Shakira on S by Shakira Eau Florale." Or just "Alexandra Kosinski and Sonia Constant... created the scent with Elisabeth Vidal..." I have made the changes. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "is classified as a oriental perfume" --> an oriental Oh god what a silly mistake! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "comprise of flowers" --> consist of flowers, are composed of flowers, are based on flowers I used "based". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "where she discussed about her inspiration" –-> where she discussed her inspiration, or talked about it. I have changed it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "late-July, 2012" and "September, 2010": no need for a comma "The perfume was aimed at a younger demographic, as revealed by Albesa, who said that Elixir "is aimed at a youthful consumer who wants to explore her power and her mystery". Again too much quoting, and the words in quotation marks are meaningless marketing. Would be better as: "The perfume was aimed at a younger demographic, according to Albesa." "sponsored by the The Fragrance Foundation" --> sponsored by the Fragrance Foundation, or if you want to retain the "The" in its name (though it's better not to do that, per MoS), sponsored by The Fragrance Foundation. "As Shakira was unable to attend the ceremony, she thanked the jury through a video call.[15] Shakira later said that she was "delighted and honoured" to be the winner of the award and that she was "so proud of what we have achieved with the fragrance of Elixir." I would remove all that. It's too gushing and conveys no information about the perfume. "20 percent of this amount": not good to start with a number. Twenty percent ... or "Industry analysts predicted that the perfume would make $14 million through global retail sales in its first year,[1] 20 percent of which was credited to sales in the United States." I would remove: "Elixir was well received both critically and commercially." It's not clear from the sources that that's correct, except in the sense that it wasn't attacked.  Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	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. Extended content I have made some changes, and have removed quotes which are not exactly necessary. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I would also remove the quote from the Sun, because it doesn't really add anything. Removed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) The two sentences beginning: "In April 2013, Puig released a press statement mentioning that the company had increased ..." The press release doesn't focus on Elixir and is arguably a little lukewarm about it, so I would remove or rewrite that. I have rephrased it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) It still gives the impression that Elixir drove up company profits ("The press release also stated that the company had increased its market share in the selective perfume industry consequentially"). The press release said: "The 2012 growth in fragrances was bolstered by the launch of CH Men Sport by Carolina Herrera and the steady success of 1 MILLION by Paco Rabanne, one of the world’s best-selling men’s fragrances, along with the brand’s more recent launches, such as Black XS L’Excès and Lady MILLION EdT. The launches of Prada Luna Rossa by Prada and Valentina Assoluto by Valentino also had a positive impact. "Meanwhile, Antonio Banderas (Her Secret) and Shakira (Elixir) turned in excellent performances, enabling Puig to maintain its prominent position in the masstige fragrance category in Spain and abroad." (Note that "masstige" tends to mean over-priced mass market.) I removed the share market increase bit. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Are there reliable sales figures available anywhere, do you know? I looked around but couldn't find any. Nope, I couldn't find any. That is why I used the industry predictions. Fortunately, I had found a press release by Puig which mentioned that it was successful. It was worse for S by Shakira. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	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.

Discussion

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)

Okay, I have made some changes and tried my best to improve it. I have removed a lot many quotes that don't add anything much and have rephrased some points. I feel it is a lot more condensed and to the point now. How is it looking now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy (talk • contribs)

Thanks for doing that; it's definitely looking better. A few more suggestions:

• It would be good to include a price for one of the EDT sprays. Perhaps pick a department store website that sells it (not a discounted website), and say "priced $X US in Y as of December 2013." Better than anything else, the price tells you who this is aimed at.

I have added it now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could add to the "scent and packaging" section that it's only available as an EDT. That's quite an important point.

Available only as an EDT? It's available even as a deo. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean there is no perfume and no eau de parfum. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh.... I don't know anything about perfumes and all. Anyway, I have changed it and merged it with the pricing bit. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• You wrote: "In 2008, international fashion and fragrance company Puig announced that it had formed a partnership with Shakira and had signed an agreement "to develop a line of signature products produced with and inspired by the artist".[2] Interested in perfumery and conveying "emotions through aromas", the singer decided to take the idea further and began exploring various scents."

  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:

• "International fashion and fragrance company Puig announced in 2008 that it had formed a partnership with Shakira. The first product to appear was S by Shakira, which was released in September 2010, followed by S by Shakira Eau Florale. Elixir, which Shakira said displayed her "most sensual and exotic side," was created by Alexandra Kosinski and Sonia Constant, perfumers from Swiss fragrance manufacturer Givaudan, in collaboration with Elisabeth Vidal, a perfumer from Puig. Vidal had previously worked on S by Shakira Eau Florale."

I have made some tweaks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Title: The name of the fragrance seems to be Elixir by Shakira. There is also Aromatics Elixir by Clinique, which is an older and better known fragrance, so I wonder whether it would be worth moving the title to the full name.

According to the official website and various pages, it is referred to as Elixir. The "by Shakira" is added below only because it is marketed by her. On the other hand, "by Shakira" is part of the official name of S by Shakira and all of its flankers. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The boxes seem to say S by Shakira (large S and "by Shakira" underneath") and Elixir by Shakira (large Elixir and "by Shakira" underneath). But it's up to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is best to follow how the official website refers to the perfumes. Elixir and S by Shakira; Wild Elixir and S by Shakira Eau Florale and S by Shakira Aquamarine. In these two articles by Women's Wear Daily , Elixir is referred to without the "by Shakira", while S by Shakira is written with the complete "by Shakira." --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another suggestion is to merge this into S by Shakira and deal with all the Shakira scents at Shakira (fragrance). This would go some way to solving the problem of lack of sources, and would allow you to compare the four fragrances (S by Shakira, S by Shakira Eau Florale, Elixir, and Wild Elixir) on one page, which would give you more to write about. Just a thought.

I don't believe that is a great idea since S by Shakira and Elixir are pretty different. As seen on most WP articles on fragrances, a particular fragrance and all of its flankers are discussed on one page, while it is a different one for another. For eg, Beyonce's Heat and Pulse. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "released to major markets in Eastern Europe, Italy, and Latin America": not clear what a major market is.

I made it only "markets" now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's better, but the word "markets" isn't needed. Released in Eastern Europe, etc. means the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed "markets". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Still some unnecessary quoting, e.g. the tweet: "If you saw the photo of Shak[ira] with a pair of cheetahs this week, you'll know that something wild is coming."

I think that is a way of promoting the campaign and the tweet received a lot of coverage from reputable publications. Wild Elixir is mostly known for that picture and the ad, so I think Shakira's tweet, which is effectively a debut for that picture, is important. I can remove it if you want though. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you. I don't want to dictate what you should write. But the more like an ad this is, the less encyclopaedic it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right when you put it that way. I removed it now. Anything else I need to do? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "a younger demographic according to Albesa": comma before according

Added. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The notes and prices are in that article you linked to above, so you don't have to say "described by Shakira":

• "The scent ... has top notes of neroli, white pepper and white flower; a heart of freesia, peony and apricot skin, and a drydown of white cedarwood, amber, benzoin, sugar cane and musk.

  "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)

Conclusion

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)

I think you should fail the article. I doubt there is anything much I can do with it since there are so little valuable sources. I think I might join the queue later. Thanks for the review anyway! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be discouraging. It's possible that I'm being too strict and that other reviewers will disagree with me. I encourage you to resubmit if you believe it's GA standard. I'll keep a look out for a second review (though I won't interfere with it), and I'll try to adjust my GA reviews if another reviewer feels I've been too harsh here. Best of luck, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm really happy that we came on a mutual discussion to fail the article. At times, reviewers just fail an article suddenly without any proper reason. I think this has been a peer review of sorts for me, and I thank you for that. I do think I'll renominate it, but after one or two weeks. I'm also content in the fact that I got almost all of the GA criteria points right, but even a one wrong makes a big difference. Thank you again! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome and thank you for being so nice about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 5 December 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.