Talk:The Sun Comes Out World Tour

Untitled

Will the tour also support her upcoming Spanish album? Rcr18 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SEAT

Can someone add info about SEAT's "Good Stuff" promotion? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.130.104 (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.81.119.114, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} HER TOUR IS ALSO COMING TO ST PAUL MN. IN THE TARGET CENTER ON DATES NOVEMBER 1 AND 2

209.81.119.114 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

without a source it cannot and will not be added.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

She also has a date in Laredo, TX at october 5 at the Laredo Energy Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.95.162.219 (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Renteria227, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Well the OFFICIAL name of the tour was revealed in an interview with Shakira and its...

Tour De Las Delicias or The Tour of Earthly Delights

source.... http://www.shakiramedia.com/news/detail/847

Renteria227 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, Shakiramedia.com is a fansite and there is no evidence of legitemacy. Whereas the official tour poster says She Wolf Tour. I think its worth waiting before changing the tour name. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SpigotMap 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well where did you get that "official" tour poster? Because i cant find it on Shakira.com

And in all her ads for the tour and on Ticketmaster it simply says "Shakira in Concert" because nothing official had been released.

That poster you have up, i saw on a forum. It was fanmade. it isnt official.

Just check your facts. Tour De Las Delicias was revealed in an interview with Shakira. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renteria227 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

here is the source.

a Spanish article...

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Compito/conmigo/conseguir/perfeccion/elpepucul/20100524elpepicul_4/Tes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renteria227 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing all the information i don't think either is correct. i am going to move the page to Shakira 2010 Global Tour as was listed on her website.Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I mean i wasn't arguing.. I was just simply trying to get the name up. But thanks for reviewing the articles, even though it states it there. But when its official you will change it, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renteria227 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course if there's more than one source with at least one official source confirming it then yes. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we move this now? There are four sources confirming the title of the tour. Stopitplease92 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 World Tour by Shakira → Tour of Earthly Delights — Title of tour has been referenced in following articles:[1], [2] and [3]. Itsbydesign (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sale El Sol/The Sun Comes Out World Tour

according to Ramon Garcia (shakira's official website administrator and founder of shakiramedia) the name has been changed from tour of earthly delights to Sale El Sol Tour. he is a reliable source and as presented before, he usually has information about shakira before anyone else. he said the official poster with the name would surface soon. i ask for someone to change the title. https://twitter.com/Ramon_G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.96.8 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not going to happen until multiple third party reliable sources reports the name change. Itsbydesign (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This has now been confirmed on Shakira's official website [4] 86.181.195.30 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some pics my neighbor's son took

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=41455

From Santa Barbara on Wednesday night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.218.243 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Americas"

Two things: in the first paragraph, it's stated that the tour "has ended it's leg in the Americas and is currently in Europe," being such statement false whereas the tour has still a leg in South America (part of "the Americas," the American Continent or simply America) and in Central America; second, in the table with dates and venues, both the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica are labeled under "North America," being this rather wrong, since both countries are part of Central America (or simply America, addressing the whole continent), or even more, the Dominican Republic is part of the Caribbean, usually considered part of Central America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.232.61 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

San Juan Gross Revenue

I don'r understand why the user erased the Puerto Rico gross revenue when the reference to bilboard charts was made perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzypacheco (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 October 2011 (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:The Sun Comes Out World Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hmlarson (talk · contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have begun the review and will be posting feedback below. As issues are addressed, please add a note to the relevant item below. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

General

• Overall, this article is very well-written and thorough. I have just a few suggestions below based on my initial review.

Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Please remove both commas surrounding "on 3 May 2010"

 Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikify city names, Pop Festival

I have wikilinked the cities, but Pop Festival doesn't seem to have any particular article on Wikipedia. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Background

• Wikify any initial uses of city names

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concert synopsis

• Can a more reliable source be used for these?

• "Isabel Betancourt from TheCelebrityCafe.com felt that the "acoustic" segment of the concert show had a "more Spanish, romantic feel".[24]"
• "The alternative rock song "Sale el Sol" was sung with the motive to be "offered to her audience as uplifting words to remember during difficult times", according to Isabel Betancourt from TheCelebrityCafe.com.[24] "

I have made some tweaks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical response

• Please modify first sentence to: "The tour received numerous positive reviews from critics."

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Commercial reception

• Please remove first sentence unless there is an official benchmark for what a commercial success is. Clearly ranking #4 is hard to beat, but I think the first sentence is not necessary. Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I think it's best we state only facts. Hence  Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Review checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellent, well-written article. I have a few suggestions listed above; but overall, very well done.

Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well done; few adjustments noted in feedback.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Verified and good use of images and captions.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have addressed the comments! Thank you for the review and taking it out of the backlog! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I've checked the edits and all looks good. Hmlarson (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:27, 30 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.