Talk:Sale el Sol

Singles

What is the problem?!?! Waka Waka is the TECHNICAL single from the album. Even Shakira said it herself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsmartie (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! The album has sold 3.000.000 of copys!! please edit the information (sorry for my english, i am latin)--Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettyreyesb (talk • contribs) 10:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettyreyesb (talk • contribs)

release date

Go to HMV website... This is not coming out in the uk until 8/11/10 (11TH NOVEMBER) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.178.100 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gordita/sale el sol

why is there no menion of the song "gordita" on here? she played it in three concerts with calle 13. and its a new song from her album "Sale El Sol" Also the title track "sale el sol" was never played in Brazil, like in says there. it was played in Spain and Portugal only. someone correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.176.142 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why isn't it mentioned? And why is it considered for deleting? It's all been confirmed on her website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfriends0730 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sale El Sol wasn't performed on RIR Portugal, just RIR Spain. Gordita was performed in Portugal and Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.31.127 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

adding "THE" to "Sun comes Out"

the album is titled "the Sun Comes Out". i really don't see why the "THE" is taking out from all the places its mentioned. hope it gets fixed. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.58.254 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Added. Regards, ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Well done. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Waka Waka [k-mix]

The Waka Waka's [K-mix] is w/o Freshlyground and Rabiosa is with pitbull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.114.183.192 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm thinking the same thing isn't featuring those song? and Gordita with Rene Perez from Calle 13? but I guess nobody but them since they want to wait to heard the album and know if they are actually on the songs.

how do you know this? where is it sourced? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

I don't think anything about track listing should be on here yet because nothing is officially CONFIRMED by the label. There is 3 different ones, yes? And saying the Japan one is the regular edition, and adding a section for one in Germany and just assuming it's just for Germany, when the Japan one could also just be for Japan. I say wait until an official announcement from her website. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 16:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Those tracklistings are confirmed in much the same way it was for She Wolf. If you look at the German listing - its all the same tracks from the other ones its just formatted different. All will become clearer much sooner and then we can modify the sections accordingly. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. The Japan one could even be an early version of it. Nothing has actually been confirmed by her record label, but like you said, we should just wait and see I guess. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the 'German' edition is taken from her official website. And the two sources from HMV Japan are for the Europe editions of the album. The only difference between the 'German Edition' and the HMV Japan one are that some of the tracks are listed as bonus tracks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree its confusing. So I've removed the HMV tracklistings and just left the official one from her German website. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

well Amazon USA has just added a tracklisting for the album. and it seems like sale el sol will be released in the states as opposed to the sun comes out as stated on here. also since this is a mostly spanish album i think the default order of the songs is having the spanish tracks first as its on the US amazon tracklisting of sale el sol. http://www.amazon.com/Sale-El-Sol-Shakira/dp/B0041OOJNU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.153.12 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"sale el sol" is now up for pre-order on iTunes USA, it features the same tracklisting as amazon.com but with "Loca (Feat. Dizzee Rascal) [Fremasons Radio Edit]" as a pre-order only bonus track. also in seems that in the US, it will be sold as "sale el sol" not "the sun comes out", as opposed to what's written on the release history on this article.

Loca (Js Mix)

The album version of Loca is not JS Mix By:KiRx (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

References

German edition

The German version of Sale el Sol should be included... It's:

1. Sale El Sol 3:20

2. Loca (Featuring Dizzee Rascal) 3:13

3. Antes De Las Seis 2:54

4. Gordita (Featuring Residente Calle 13) 3:25

5. Addicted To You 2:27

6. Lo Que Más 2:27

7. Mariposas 3:47

8. Rabiosa (Featuring Pitbull) 2:50

9. Devoción 3:29

10. Islands 2:42

11. Tu Boca 3:25

12. Waka Waka (This Time For Africa) (K-Mix) 3:04

13. Loca (Featuring El Cata) 3:03

14. Rabiosa (Featuring El Cata) 2:50

15. Waka Waka (Esto Es Africa) (K-Mix) 3:04

16. Waka Waka (This Time For Africa) (Featuring Freshlyground) 3:22

source

It's different from the original one! --79.216.219.188 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Its exactly the same except it has one additional song... (listed as European bonus track) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, 2 is changed with 13 and 8 is changed with 14. The times of the single tracks are also different + the bonus track you already said --79.216.219.188 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Added European edition (w/o German track 16, since this is bonus track and doesn't appear on standard Europaen edition). Rraton (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Page quality

I've change the page's class because the album's hasn't been totally released in the all wideworld. After it being released in Japan, the page can have a quality, thak you. Salgado 96.

Can I just say, it is not yet released in the United Kingdom. According to the HMV website, it comes out on November 11th. Also, if you look on UK iTunes, you'll notice it isn't available. -Anonymous

Certification

Can we add this ref http://twitter.com/Sonymusicvzla for sale el sol Venezuela platinum certification?. if it is reliable then pls add it. By:Ashishvats23 (talk), 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Charts

In Germany, the album debuted at No. 6... Her worst charting studio album since 1998. Please add! source--79.216.222.164 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

German Downloads Chart

The album reached No. 1 on the German Downloads Chart! Please add that! SOURCE--79.216.220.205 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Certification

We don't have the source of certifications of countries like colombia and venezuela. so the billboard and other are reliable for them. Please comment. Thank you. By:Ashishvats23 (talk), 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Only the certificate provider is a reliable source. This is always been the case. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a number for worldwide total sales yet???

Rcr18 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Charts

The album jumped from No. 3 to No. 2 on the European Top 100 Albums source. Please add that change! --79.216.213.42 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Second Single Sale el Sol

the second single has been Sale el Sol! please don't edit this KiRx (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Year-End-charts

It's No. 53 in Germany in 2010 source--79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in Certifications

In the source for Germany it's about the certifications in Switzerland, so it's wrong! But in the meantime, the album also reached Gold in Germany so just change the source ... source--79.216.196.84 (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RABIOSA IS 3RD SINGLE

shakira herself recently said the next single would be rabiosa on a french interview on the recent awards there. the video is on youtube. the official fan club and shakira.com director also confirmed that rabiosa would be a single this year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.34.240 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 2.126.119.136, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I have noticed a small error. In the track listing, track 10 "islands" has a missing name. Please replace "Romy Madley Croft, Oliver Sim, Jamie Smith" with "Romy Madley Croft, Baria Qureshi, Oliver Sim, Jamie Smith" All these names are of the original members of the uk band "The xx" who all co-wrote that particular album but two songs. 2.126.119.136 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Skyscrapermember

{{edit semi-protected}} There are a lot more certifications (with official sources) and a lot of information to be added and updated.

Not done: you'll have to explicitly spell out what you want changed for this edit request to work. — Bility (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'Addicted to You' article??

Why isn't there a article about the 5 single 'Addicted to You'. http://www.shakira.com/news/title/addicted-to-you-is-new-single

She also shot the music video on March 29, 2012 in Los Angeles. The video was directed by Anthony Mandler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggyMinaj (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the song has not ranked on any national charts. See WP:NSONGS. Erick (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sale el Sol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. Longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 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: No issues.
• Reference check: 3 issues, all with webcite archives availiable

1. Top 50 Albums 2011 (info) [promusicae.es] - 404 ( 2 different dates? Does it matter)
2. Top 20 - Lista de Radio (info) [promusicae.org] - 404

 Fixed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Several issues, mostly prose related to fix.

• " released on October 19, 2010, by Epic Records. Released following " makes the wording awkward
• "The title track was released" - no surprise links on title track. And I think it should be defined better because it is the album's name.

I removed the linking, but I was unable to understand what you meant by the latter remark. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The album was positively received by most music critics and was praised for its distinguished and unusual nature." - Cite
• "which soon became a worldwide hit.[9]" remove "soon"
• "She decided to experiment with merengue music on the album, saying "I grew up listening to merengue—that was a big part of my life, and I was missing it", " - End the sentence here with the cite and drop "and thus" for "Shakira traveled to the Dominican Republic to work with Dominican songwriter and record producer El Cata, resulting in songs like "Loca" and "Rabiosa"." and cite that. And do not forget to fix the "travelled" typo.
• "Sale el Sol is considered to be Shakira's return to her "roots" and is a "fusion between rock and pop heavily influenced from Latino and Colombian music".[14] Shakira said there are three "directions" of Sale el Sol: a romantic one, a "very rock and roll" one, and a "Latino, tropical" one." I do not like how this is straight from the lead.

I have done some rewording. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " So it’s (the album has) got songs that are very intense, very romantic"." Sic for it's at the very least.
• " This direction appears on ballads" wording
• "rmer Shakira delivers "sad, emotional, and heartfelt vocals".," period to a comma must be fixed.
• " while in the latter she singes "simply over solo piano and strings"." - typo "singes" and why is this in quotes?

Oh well it was taken directly from the source. But still I paraphrased it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ""beats all U2-inspired arena rockers at their own game"." Opinion needs attribution.
• "Merengue is recognised as the national music of the Dominican Republic "that reflected the blending of Spanish and African cultural influences", and is characterised by the use of the accordion and the percussion instrument tambora.[2" Should have been discussed long ago. More typos with "recognised" and "characterised" - More British words in a clearly American English article.

I have made some moves and changes. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the title track is composed of "evocative and hopeful" lyrics," Attribute who said this.
• " It was sent for digital download to the iTunes Store on the same day.[" - wording.
• "It was well received by music critics, who complimented the inclusion of merengue music on the recording." cite.

I removed all instances of critical review since they make the article seem bloated. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "e Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas and the Productores de Música de España.[36] In Shakira's native country Colombia, it was certified diamond by the Asociación Colombiana de Productores de Fonogramas." English meanings might be night to add.

I modified the titles of the orgs to their English names, using the FL List of music recording certifications. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It received generally positive reviews from music critics, and, similar to "Loca", was praised for its merengue influences." cite
• "It generated a favourable response from music critics, many of whom praised its fast pace." cite
• "The concert shows were well received" - well-recieved

Typo.

• "The tour was a bigger success worldwide, ranking at number 20 on Pollstar's 2011 "Top 25 Worldwide Tours" with a total gross of $53.2 million and ticket sales amounting up to 692,064" change "bigger" and reword the end.
• "Sale el Sol was included in AllMusic's "Favorite Albums of 2010" year-end list.[93] The album also appeared on the website's "Favorite Latin Albums of 2010" list.[94]" - combining these sentence would reduce the choppyness.
• "calledSale el Sol a" needs a space.
• "Allison Stewart opined that the album" word choice on opined.

Instead of just stating the problem, please try to suggest a solution too. I don't mean to dictate how to conduct a review, nor am I saying you're a bad reviewer because you conduct a detailed and accurate review, but at times I really have to rub my head because I can't figure out what I should do since there is just a problem in front of me and no suggestion --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Opined is a really awkward word choice that breaks the flow of the word for many readers, and it might be applicable to WP:SAY and that is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch which is part of the GA criteria. What is the problem with "wrote", "said", "stated"? "Opined" carries a snobbish tone - just say the word aloud - that drastically alters the tone of the article and it does so unintentionally. If you disagree with me, by all means, DO so. Many of the issues I present are not going to make or break the review and are more suggestions on improving the prose and flow of the writing - but I am still quite a ways from being a 1A] master. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with you on the "opined" part and I never said you were wrong. I would have really appreciated it if you had given me an example of how the sentence can be written. What I do appreciate are your reviews and the problems you point, I only said I'd appreciate more if you also gave suggestions or examples. I'm sorry if I struck a wrong chord here. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " charted for a long period of 55 and 54 weeks, respectively." - remove "long period"

 Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that covers some of the issues with the prose, please do a thorough review of the text and copy edit it some more please. Now I will go into the reliable source matter.

1. Ref 7 is a blog. Reuters blog or not.

After some rewording I  Removed it --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Ref 17 is Aol Radio Blog.

I realised the blog was just supplementing facts already proven by the other sources. Hence,  Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they do that, thanks for going the extra mile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Same with 21.
2. Ref 35 is a Facebook posting - please replace it.
3. Ref 53 is also.
4. Ref 60 is no different.

The facebook sources are all right since 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.

A good argument - very well. It may not be ideal, but it is reliable and verified. So that's perfectly acceptable.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Ref 95 is a LA Times blog.

The rest seem to be alright. The blogs bring up the question of reliable sourcing, so please make an argument for each of them and in the case of the Facebook postings, please try and find the statements on an official website. Placing on hold for fixes.

 Done all, except the facebook one as per argument above --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'll pass it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:55, 9 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.