Jump to content

Talk:Loca (Shakira song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLoca (Shakira song) 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 starLoca (Shakira song) is part of the Sale el Sol 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 9, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Cover

[edit]

http://media.shakira.com/non_secure/images/20100901/shakira_loca_cover/shakira_loca_cover_640.jpg http://www.shakira.com/news all the information to keep this page is here

Added the cover. Adding more information now. Thanks for the info! —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Loca (Shakira song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DivaKnockouts (talk · contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Copy-edited parts of the lead.
  • "Upon its release, "Loca" received generally favorable reviews from music critics, who complimented the inclusion of merengue music in the track." → Upon its release, "Loca" received generally favorable reviews from music critics, who complimented the inclusion of merengue music on the track.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It features Shakira interacting with the beach crowd." → "It features Shakira interacting with a beach crowd."

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stay consistent with which version of English you use. (i.e, "favorable" and "favourable")

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "About the collaboration Dizzee Rascal said that "I know it sounds a bit mad now, but you'll see it and see what's going on", he said." → "Speaking about the collaboration, Dizzee Rascal said that "I know it sounds a bit mad now, but you'll see it and see what's going on", he said."

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lyrically, the song is about Shakira expressing her erratic and obsessive behaviour towards her lover, more so than his other leading lady,[2] prominently heard in the lines "She'd die for your love / But your love's only mine, boy" and "I'm crazy but you like it"." — Move the reference in this sentence to the end.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception
  • Again, stay consistent with what English you use. (i.e., "favorable" and "complement".)

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is Pitbull? (I know who he is, but provide information for the uninvolved reader. "American rapper" should do.)

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance
  • "On the week of September 18, 2010 the song debuted at number 40 on the Billboard Tropical Songs..." — Add a comma after September 18, 2010.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling this to me. I'll take care next time I edit song articles :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and number 1 on digital tropical charts with great selling of 6000+ downloads." — "great selling" sounds a little to much on the WP:FANCRUFT side. Perhaps, "strong digital sells" would do better?

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On the week of September 25, 2010 the song debuted at number 31 on the Billboard Latin Songs and reached its peak position at number 1." — Add a comma after September 25, 2010. Also, added when it reached its peak position. "1" needs to be written out per WP:ORDINAL.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard link was dead here and I couldn't find any archive. I had to remove all the date information as a result since Allmusic doesn't specify it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the week of October 14, 2010 "Loca" debuted at number 98 on Billboard Hot 100." — Add a comma after October 14, 2010.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The song has become Shakira's ninth number-one hit on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs and her thirteenth number 1 hit on the Latin Pop Songs, making her the second female artist with most number-one hits after Gloria Estefan (14) on the former and the female artist with most on the latter." — All numbers under ten must be written out per WP:ORDINAL.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the information about "Loca"'s debut, peak and sales separated?

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On the week of September 27, 2010 the song debuted at number 10 in Spain and at number 25 in Italy." — Add a comma after September 27, 2010.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music video
  • The music video was released on September 29, 2010 and the Spanish version of the video was released as the free video of the week on iTunes on December 21, 2010. — Which version was released on September 29, 2010? Also, where is the source(s) to confirm this?

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Shakira performed the song with Dizzee Rascal for the first time on the MTV EMA 2010 on November 7, 2010." — How could Shakira have performed the song with Dizzee Rascal for the first time on the MTV EMA 2010 on November 7, 2010 if above you state she performed it first on September 23, 2010? Also, EMA should be spelled out.
Actually what the sentence meant was that they performed the song together for the first time. So I tweaked it.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References-

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN#2 — No italics to AOL Radio, not a printed source, per WP:CITEHOW.
  • FN#4 — Date missing. (December 2, 2010)
  • FN#5 — No italics to iTunes Store per WP:CITEHOW.
  • FN#6 — See FN#6.
  • FN#8 — Date missing. (September 7, 2010)
  • FN#9 — Date missing. (October 29, 2010)
  • FN#10 — Date missing. (October 25, 2010)
  • FN#12 — Date missing. (October 19, 2010), Author missing. (Stewart, Allison), Typo: "SOl".
  • FN#13 — Date missing. (May 20, 2010)
  • FN#17 — No italics to About.com per WP:CITEHOW.
  • FN#20 — No italics to Allmusic per WP:CITEHOW. Also, Rovi Corporation now publishes Allmusic, not All Media Guide.
  • FN#21 — Link is dead.
  • FN#24 — See FN#20.
  • FN#31 — No italics to MTV News per above.
  • FN#32 — See FN#31.
  • FN#34 — See FN#31.
  • FN#41 — Terra Networks should be the work parameter while Telefónica should be the publisher.
  • FN#45 — Not a reliable source.
  • FN#51 — No italics to iTunes Store per above.
  • FN#52–53 — See FN#51.
  • FN#55 — See FN#51.
  • FN#60 — Not a reliable source per WP:CHARTS.
  • FN#61–63 — Language parameters needed.
  • FN#65 — This source is in Spanish, should be noted.
  • FN#67-69 — Language parameters needed.
  • FN#96–104 — No italics to iTunes Store per above.
  • Stay consistent with what date format you use. (i.e, 9 June 2013 or June 9, 2013)
Actually a bot went about and removed all the italics Wikiredactor had put to reverse the auto-italicization of the non publisher work parameters. Ugh, gotta do it again. Hope the bot doesn't show up again :O --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm almost done. But I have a problem with the unreliable sources since the ref order has changed. Can you please copy paste the entire foot note text for me? I'm really sorry for increasing your work. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, it was Perez Hilton's blog. — DivaKnockouts 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting article  On hold until issues have been addressed or resolved. Wow, that was a lot! xD Should of let Erick get this one. Hahaha, jk. — DivaKnockouts 07:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Actually this was the first song article I have worked on. Thanks for conducting this review, you have pointed out so many new things to take care of next time. Thank you so much! :D --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Great job on the article. Now passing :) — DivaKnockouts 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you soooooo sooooooooooooooo much! My first GA article! :'D — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy1998 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This song has many more page views than any of the other articles listed on the disambiguation, not to mention that many of the listed articles are just acronyms for other page titles. A hatnote on the Shakira song would surely suffice in the (seemingly) slim chance that this was not the article a reader would be looking for. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said infobox. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because your reason to oppose was because of "PDAB", which is incorrect. PRIMARYTOPIC may still applying, which may be a reason to move. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Disambiguation, Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. In this case the single term (Loca)is ambiguous and the guidelines clear. This specifically applies to song titles, which with few exceptions, are used over and over again.
I might have a little sympathy with those that wished to move articles if they also amended the incoming links, apparently that is not worth doing, so if WP is unfortunate enough to see this article moved every wikilink will be via Loca (Shakira song). So what was the point of you supporting the move? None whatsoever. Totally pointless.
Loca means Crazy, too, just another common word which is probably used as a song title more times than we can shake a stick at, but oh no this version by a person called Shakira (who, with due respect, will hardly be known in 20 years time) had to have prime place for "Loca"
Anybody looking for a song called Loca by any artist will find it easier (yeah, this is the purpose of article namespaces!) if the name of the artist is there as well. Looking for Loca by Foo artist, simple, you won't have to look at Loca (Shakira song) then will you?
There is no guideline of any description which supports ambiguating titles. There is a reason for this. It is unfortunate that some editors insist on interpreting some guidelines as meaning we should be ambiguating titles!
I also note we have one or two editors who specifically add redirects for the album tracks of their favourite artists - including, sometimes, alternative capitalizations, alternative titles, etc etc. This needs to be thought about - especially in the context of proposed moves like this. But it will add half a dozen more Locas to WP without doubt!
Finally, if this song was at Loca already, I would not have nominated to move, it is the moving which is equally disruptive. Sometimes a move is unavoidable, but those editors who make moves because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while ignoring WP:RECENT without using WP:COMMONSENSE and a passing understanding of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:PDAB without DABbing the incoming links should be censored. It is disruptive editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Amendments --Richhoncho (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you now mostly, but not about the Shakira being forgotten in 20 years part... --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, she may well be notable in 20 years time, but my point is that notability in music, specifically song, and, generally, artist is transient. BTW If you agree with me now, will your strike your support above? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slasm as above Loca (Arsenium song) and WP:PDAB applies. And apart from the Eurovision song they might be looking for Loca Con Su Tiguere by El Cata which Shakira's song is based on. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
? How does that apply? If this song has primary topic for Loca, it has primary topic for Loca, period. And FAR more people are looking for Shakira's song (viewed 16970 times in the past 90 days) than Arsenium's (with 567). The El Cata song seems just a partial title match. There may be an argument against the move, but it sure ain't WP:PDAB. Red Slash 03:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash, you're right - I was getting distracted because your RM and all the comments are talking about songs songs songs. I don't see that there can be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Loca a common adjective, generically "the mad woman", as illustrated by the Chicana literature figure La Loca. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Loca plagiarism problem.

[edit]

It's All over the media right now. Source. Erick (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know! It's kinda funny lol. Anyway, I'm very busy with schoolwork at the moment, can you please add the information or ask someone else to do it? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Loca (Shakira song). 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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loca (Shakira song). 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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

The Spanish version is shorter (and more popular), the English version contains additional footage with Dizzee Rascal. It's not like with "She Wolf," where the two versions are exactly the same.82.177.40.11 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated 5 million sales

[edit]

This 5 million copies claim is completely nonsense. Where this song sold that amount of copies? It has "only" 500,000 with certifications and those are the countries where it performed better. Do you really think it sold 10 x more in other countries, little markets where the digital and streming sales are almost irrelevant? We know how media works on sales, see the album Thriller case, before Michael Jackson death it was reported sold around 50 million copies (even Michael Jackson sais that in a documentary), and then after his death 150 millions, the certifications to date are around 45 million copies and the claim used here in Wikipedia is 66 million copies, wthe more accurate possible. I think we have to do the same here, but in the casa erase that info about 5 million copies worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it was reported from Reuters and sources such as the BBC picked up on it. There are multiple sources stating the same thing as a result. It needs to be fact checked a little more and we can determine if it should be removed.Rain the 1 00:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need of that. BBC and Reuters can't say nothing about sales. They are not IFPI and doesn't work with sales like Nielsen soundscan, those sales came from record companies, other unreliable sites and Wikipedia itself.--88marcus (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Marcus. Those worldwide sales have nonsense. You need to take care on Vandalism... specially in Shakira's sales... the vandalism that Shakira's articles have had in many Wikipedia's (mainly Spanish) and then later, her sales became "true" in other languages (like English or French since she is popular in those markets). This is a "woozle effect" in the media. So... the statement about "Reuters and/or BBC" is wrong:

1. Are just primary sources. All those (English) sources since 2014/2015 talking about the worldwide sales is refering the same issue: "plagiarism". It's a "cyclic information".

2. Original 5 million figure came from sources in Spanish, like this one in 2011. Later was included in all Wikipedias and since she is a "spanish singer" source was accepted and the figure of 5 million copies became in a "wozzle effect".

3. The issue with the vandalism in spanish version in Wikipedia even is worst. You can verify even since 2010 that the song became number one in "33 countries".... for example 22 countries in December 2010 (at least)... Since then increased in 33 countries because was never reverted (example). Same issue with the figure of "5 million copies". Was never reverted.

4. You can see even how since December 2011 it was included same statement in English Wikipedia: "Loca" reached number one in more than 33 countries and has sold more than five million copies worldwide. with the same spanish reference provided. So this actually is a primary source. It's the problem of vandalism (in this particular case from other Wiki-versions) and inclusion with nonsense by editors.

Also, in reference this source ("noted to be the best selling merengue song of all time") I don't know why this can consider to be a "verified reference".

Chrishonduras (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loca_(Shakira_song)&oldid=1208546722"