Talk:Elixir (perfume)/GA2

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: 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

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: Several issues were found, nothing too hard, but this was overall and enjoyable read.

• " After the release of her first fragrance S by Shakira and its successor S by Shakira Eau Florale, which were developed in a collaboration with international fashion company Puig, Shakira aimed to capture her "most sensual and exotic side" in the form of a perfume. " Please rework this with the lead, it currently drags on and on, without strength. The lead itself does need some touch ups as well.

I have reworked it a bit. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Elixir was made available only as an eau de toilette, and its prices ranged from US $17.50 to US $36 with respect to the size.[1]" is directly contradicted by the listing in release which shows "Deodorant spray - 150 ml/5.1 oz[13] Body lotion - 101 ml/3.4 oz (available only in gift sets)[14] and Lip balm - 15.7 ml/0.53 oz (available only in gift sets)[14]" This means that it was not released only as an eau de toilette.

The previous reviewer had told me to include this fact. I pointed out the exact same thing that you have said here, but the user, who knows quite a bit about perfumes, explained that Elixir had not been released in eau de parfum format. However, since it does seem odd and perhaps contradictory, I removed the "only as" part. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Only as" is explicit in the fact it was "only" released in that form whereas not being released as an "eau de parfum" is quite different. "eau de toilette" is a perfume, but it is not released "only as" as a perfume, but a deodorant spray and a body lotion. So while the previous statement was true, the modification was still incorrect because other products are not "eau de toilette" by definition. Hope that clarifies it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first usage of Eau de toilette should be linked to Eau de toilette. While it is not the first, but I'd keep the "Release" one linked for the purposes of skimming readers.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At the 2011 Academia Del Perfume Award ceremony sponsored by the Fragrance Foundation.." - drop the "sponsored by the Fragrance Foundation" portion please unless its sponsoring matters here.

The sponsoring bit is necessary as Academia Del Perfume will not matter as much independently. The fact that the The Fragrance Foundation, which is evidently the only fragrance-related organisation WikiPedia identifies, sponsors the awards makes them notable. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well, but it adds to the ad-like tone of the article which is borderline for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The flacon of the perfume is largely similar to the original one," - drop "largely" and it reads just fine, and "largely" is an improper word choice here.

 Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any reception for Wilde Elixir, which is a point of issue on such a short article. The description of the commercial is also a bit weak in prose. And while overall it means the minimums in terms of a GA for prose, it is extremely far from the 1A requirement of a featured article. The more you can do to tighten this up, the better.

As for the reception part, I tried finding some sources but found none which were reputable. As for the prose bit, I have made some tweaks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The last issue is easily fixable. Three of the images used are simply not relevant and serve no purpose in the article, except possibly to be pleasing to the eye. The two images of the product do their tasks, but the differences in Wild Elixir are a very very weak inclusion criteria since I think the general idea has and can be explained by the text without issue. Presenting an issue with Non-free content criteria. It would be best to remove the image for Wild Elixir as a result. The next image is that the "The flacon of the perfume is similar to an apothecary bottle" is referenced in the text. The image in question need not point that out or draw attention when the actual product and used. Please remove it. Same goes for the picture of the desert... it's pretty, but it looks like it serves as more as an advertisement piece because it is simply not relevant to show a picture of what the desert looks like. Same for the cheetah image; its a cheetah - how does this add to the understanding of Elixir? I question the relevance of these images because they do not add anything directly related to the article and do not do anything more than show an image that is already supported by the text's description - in fact, it seems like it is just giving a visual picture to go with the text to inform the reader of what it looks like. Placing this on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The images you have specified have been removed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I found some more issues with the promotional speech of the article. The quote: "After my first two fragrances, I wanted to do something different - I wanted to push the idea even further and develop a fragrance that would express my most sensual and exotic side, and Elixir is the result of that. We worked on the concept of a "second skin," a fragrance that becomes a part of you. - Shakira, on her inspiration behind the perfume.[1]" is totally promotional and inaccurate because I doubt she personally developed the perfume.

• "After developing her first two fragrances, Shakira decided to create a scent which would display her "most sensual and exotic side" and sought inspiration from the deserts of Morocco." - is also more ad speak given the conclusion of the former.

• "masstige" - really? That's a bit of jargon
• "For additional promotion, a game was also made available for users to play at the official website of the fragrance.[24] Every person who played the game would also donate a brick to Shakira's Barefoot Foundation automatically.[24]" Promotional and poor prose, so please combine and shorten.
• I'd like to see two more detailed accounts in reliable sources of the perfume to help establish its reception and impact. Please check the industry and fashion magazines for these sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes. As for the last point, do you refer to Elixir or Wild Elixir? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Both, but Wild Elixir has no reception at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

After a lot of digging (believe me when I say "a lot"), I found something related to both the perfumes. The problem with Wild Elixir is that its promo pic and the ad got so much coverage that they kind of overshadowed the scent itself. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What happened? The review seems to have got stuck? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so so so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:28, 7 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.