Talk:Elixir (perfume)

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:Elixir (perfume)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

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:Elixir (perfume)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Elixir (perfume). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109124747/http://www.puig.com/uploads/pressreltranslation/en_GB/c3461a7a58358e8508bacccdf8bfce.pdf to http://www.puig.com/uploads/pressreltranslation/en_GB/c3461a7a58358e8508bacccdf8bfce.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109131127/http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/ to http://www.shakira-beauty.com/GB/en/

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) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)