Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katy Perry/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 [1].
Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC) & S△M talk 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson aka Katy Perry. She's the California Gurl who kissed another girl and very much liked it. When I first started working on this article slightly over one year ago back in July 2013, it was a delisted GA. Ever since, I've done intricate work on this article and have made over 1,000 edits to the page. I now believe she's finally ready for that gold star. In March 2009, she went through a premature GAN and failed for prose, but was successfully brought to GA three weeks later. However, she was delisted in October 2012 for prose and reference issues. After a detailed peer review from JennKR this past January, the article went through more expansion and fine-tuning before a successful GAN last month. Thank you again, Petergriffin9901, for all your input during the GAN. Looking back, the article was in better state this past May (when I nominated this for GA) than it ever was before October 2012. Shortly afterwards, I took this to peer review for further improvement. Within the last couple weeks, I've done some more polishing before this FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Chasewc91
- Support – see below. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Chasewc91
|
---|
|
Overall, this is a very well-written and well-structured article that includes an abundance of info without being obscenely large. I will be more than happy to lend my support once these concerns are addressed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining concerns are dated 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC). (CTRL+F the timestamp) Just thought I'd add this at the bottom for convenience. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Chase how does she look now? Also, do you think perhaps there's enough material to warrant a "legacy" section for this article or is it too soon in her career?? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too soon. But a lot of great improvements have been made and I now gladly support this nomination. Kudos to your very hard work, Snuggums and Sam, and best of luck. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much sir :3 Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor
Resolved concerns from WikiRedactor
|
---|
Definitely a well-written article, I will be happy to give my support when these comments have been addressed. I will check back in a short while! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, I am very happy to see all of the hard work you put into this article has paid off! Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you- I have indeed put my blood, sweat, and tears into this page! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I am very happy to see all of the hard work you put into this article has paid off! Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ritchie333
- Conditional Support pending comments elsewhere and referencing problems listed below - I was involved in the peer review, and thought there would be some more minor prose issues that FAC would throw up, but Snuggums seems to be on top of them all, so I'm happy to think this will not be hard to reach the FA criteria. It's a well written and informative article about an increasingly important figure in modern entertainment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ritchie333 :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prism
- Just a minor point, but why isn't—at least—Sam listed as a nominator? He really contributed to the development of the article and should get some recognition, in my opinion. My comments on prose/files/etc will be here soon. (I'm excited to see that this already has two supports!) pedro | talk 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Prism the reason is because when I launched this FAC, it automatically just listed my own username. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should add him, though. pedro | talk 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yeah, I saw. I'll be back tomorrow. pedro | talk 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Prism
|
---|
|
pedro | talk 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is she now, Prism? Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Better than ever, 'resulting in me giving you another Support' (that's me trying to make a joke). I know you—Snuggums—since last year, when we started edit-wars over what images to include on Prism's composition section. You've come a long way since then, in terms of writing and being nice to others. This is truly your finest work, as well as Sam's, and I can't congratulate you enough! pedro | talk 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from IPadPerson
- Support, Your tireless work on this article has really made it meet the requirements for FA based on its layout and look. This would definitely be the right time for its nomination to FA instead of doing so at the last minute. The article's sources also seem to be in very good shape. Keep up the good work! IPadPerson (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you IPadPerson :3 Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Retrohead
Resolved concerns from Retrohead
|
---|
Finally got the time to review this article, so I'll jump straight to my concerns:
Addressed your points, Retrohead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support on prose and support on enthusiasm and team work. My concerns were dealt with the speed of light, and I've got no further objections. You've outdone yourself on this one Snuggums. Turning an article from C-class into a featured item is an admirable feat. I'll leave the image and source review on someone else. Good luck with those.--Retrohead (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
- Support. I have made some minor corrections, but excellent work overall! Happy to lend my support. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from IndianBio
Starting on image and non-free content review (if any) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IndianBio, the verdict, please? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this helps, but
- File:Katy Perry NRJ 2014 3.jpg — image hosted on Commons with OTRS permission. Okay
- File:Katy Perry performing.jpg — image obtained from a free online source (i.e. Flickr) with Wikipedia-applicable Creative Commons license from its uploader. Okay
- File:Katy Perry–Zenith Paris.jpg — image obtained from Flickr too, under the same conditions. Okay
- File:Katy Perry at the Prudential Center (14446231669).jpg — the same goes for this image, hosted on Flickr with CC license. Okay
- File:Alaniss.jpg — image hosted on Commons, although by a user whose only contribution is this image, and I'm not even sure if it was taken by him. I'd reccomend you look for another image of Alanis. Not okay
- In that case, Thalcomb, I don't need your photograaaaaph..... replaced with File:Alanis Morissette - Zenith Paris - Juin 2012 (7481178886).jpg Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced this with an even higher quality image: File:Alanis Morissette 5-19-2014.jpg S△M talk 14:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg — image hosted on Commons with OTRS ticket confirmed. Okay
- File:Katy Perry 2011.jpg — hosted on Flickr with CC-BY-SA 2.0 which can be used on Wiki. Okay
- File:Katy Perry UNICEF 2012.jpg — image obtained from Flickr with applicable CC license. Okay pedro | talk 00:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @SNUGGUMS: all of them appear as fine to me per the licensing. My only qualm is the desciption of each image at their respective pages in commons. That needs to be updated to reflect. Also, I believe the descriptions of Perry's images in the main article is quite bland. Its all about "Perry performing on XXX tour" or "Perry at XXX event". A little more description would be better. Normally if you see books and academic materials, there are quite a few tid-bit about the image present in a page. That's what I'm trying to achieve here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you IndianBio, I'm contemplating better image captions now (though this could take a bit as my hands are somewhat tied). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, the Billboard references for before 2010 has publisher as Prometheus Global Media, it should be Nielsen Business Media since they were the publisher for Billboard from 1989 to 2009, when the company was taken over by Prometheus. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IndianBio I've touched up the references and have made some caption tweaks. How does she look now? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS the captions look much better and at least provide some context. I replaced the Prismatic tour image with its corresponding cropped version, it will be Flickrreviewed soon. And I'm happy to lend my support for this article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IndianBio I've touched up the references and have made some caption tweaks. How does she look now? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, the Billboard references for before 2010 has publisher as Prometheus Global Media, it should be Nielsen Business Media since they were the publisher for Billboard from 1989 to 2009, when the company was taken over by Prometheus. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you IndianBio, I'm contemplating better image captions now (though this could take a bit as my hands are somewhat tied). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @SNUGGUMS: all of them appear as fine to me per the licensing. My only qualm is the desciption of each image at their respective pages in commons. That needs to be updated to reflect. Also, I believe the descriptions of Perry's images in the main article is quite bland. Its all about "Perry performing on XXX tour" or "Perry at XXX event". A little more description would be better. Normally if you see books and academic materials, there are quite a few tid-bit about the image present in a page. That's what I'm trying to achieve here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HĐ
- Support I can't seek out any major issues on this article. Neatly done! Simon (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coord notes
Last time I looked here we hadn't had a source review for reliability and formatting, nor a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. FYI, the former is a check we try to make on every FAC, the latter is an extra hoop to jump through for people who haven't taken an article to FA before, which I think is the case here. If I'm right about these checks not having been performed, pls post requests for them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked some sources during the PR (I was not happy about at least one comment and it was removed), but one general comment I would make is that films, such as Katy Perry: Part of Me and E! Special: Katy Perry per WP:CITEHOW need an "approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriate". You can use {{sfn}} with the "loc" parameter to support this, and it will avoid having one citation that's referenced in 5+ different places. As regards paraphrasing, Earwig's bot throws an error. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS:, you can use the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates for this. Instead of p=294 (indicating pages), you can give p=00:34 (indicating at what time the interview it is sourcing took place in the film). Ask me if you need help. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Ian Rose- this is my first FA nomination. Ritchie indeed did some sourcechecking, and so did Chase. The E! Television special will take some searching. IndianBio please do help- I might be able to find some timeframes for KP3D, but don't know how to use those ref formats for film/television. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the blu-ray of the film. So I will use {{sfn}} and substitute the time parameters. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would use loc=00:34 (for example) instead of p=00:34 for sfn - you aren't referencing a page per se. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say this could take some time as KP3D is 93 minutes long. Samjohnzon, do you by any chance have access to the E! special in full? I've only been able to find clips online, and the full video would be useful for determining time parameters. You were the one who added it in this past May, so please do provide a link here if you have one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the {{sfn}} for the Katy Perry: Part of Me 3D movie citations. If we have a full link where the E! special is viewable, I can update those too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again :D! With the film now being in the same section as Guinness World Records and biographies by Noam Friedlander, Alice Hudson, and Kimberly Dillon Summers, I'm thinking that should be titled "references" and the other section "footnotes" or "citations". Thoughts? Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the {{sfn}} for the Katy Perry: Part of Me 3D movie citations. If we have a full link where the E! special is viewable, I can update those too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say this could take some time as KP3D is 93 minutes long. Samjohnzon, do you by any chance have access to the E! special in full? I've only been able to find clips online, and the full video would be useful for determining time parameters. You were the one who added it in this past May, so please do provide a link here if you have one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would use loc=00:34 (for example) instead of p=00:34 for sfn - you aren't referencing a page per se. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the blu-ray of the film. So I will use {{sfn}} and substitute the time parameters. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Ian Rose- this is my first FA nomination. Ritchie indeed did some sourcechecking, and so did Chase. The E! Television special will take some searching. IndianBio please do help- I might be able to find some timeframes for KP3D, but don't know how to use those ref formats for film/television. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS:, you can use the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates for this. Instead of p=294 (indicating pages), you can give p=00:34 (indicating at what time the interview it is sourcing took place in the film). Ask me if you need help. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(→) That would be better. Further reading is a bit ambiguous. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS, I don't have a link to the full E! special, but it is available on YouTube in individual parts. I'm not sure if it'd be convenient to work out the combined times, especially since the first clip doesn't even seem to start at the exact starting time, so we could try and find a different source(s) to replace the special if necessary. S△M talk 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack. I really don't want this to be a deal breaker, but if the "E!" special has not been commercially released on DVD, or is otherwise accessible to the general public, you cannot use it as a source for an FA. We cannot be trumpeting this article as "Wikipedia's best work" while citing a copyright violation. I can try and find book sources to see if I can replace everything, but Katy Perry is not my chosen specialist subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck..... It has been shown on television, and Sam provided clips on YouTube, but that seems to be it, Ritchie. I'll search for other sources, but thankfully there are only three instances where it is used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All uses of the E! source should have been removed now. S△M talk 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed they have- while you removed one of the instances, I replaced the others with biographies by Alice Hudson and Kimberly Dillon Summers. We're good to go :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: did you anything about the paraphrasing error thrown by Earwig's bot here? If so please note it here for the co-ordinators to see it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When I clicked that link, IndianBio, it said "No violations detected". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonderful, @Ian Rose:, please take a note of this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When I clicked that link, IndianBio, it said "No violations detected". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: did you anything about the paraphrasing error thrown by Earwig's bot here? If so please note it here for the co-ordinators to see it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed they have- while you removed one of the instances, I replaced the others with biographies by Alice Hudson and Kimberly Dillon Summers. We're good to go :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All uses of the E! source should have been removed now. S△M talk 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck..... It has been shown on television, and Sam provided clips on YouTube, but that seems to be it, Ritchie. I'll search for other sources, but thankfully there are only three instances where it is used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack. I really don't want this to be a deal breaker, but if the "E!" special has not been commercially released on DVD, or is otherwise accessible to the general public, you cannot use it as a source for an FA. We cannot be trumpeting this article as "Wikipedia's best work" while citing a copyright violation. I can try and find book sources to see if I can replace everything, but Katy Perry is not my chosen specialist subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- Disclaimer: I have a lot more experience with history articles.
- "of record production team the Matrix": I know some people feel strongly about whether to capitalize "the" in band names, but there's a grammar issue here: it only works to lowercase "the" when it flows naturally, and it doesn't here. I kept the lowercase, but moved "the Matrix" in front of "record production team".
- Very well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perry played Moe Szyslak's girlfriend in a Christmas episode of The Simpsons": Although "played" wasn't wrong, there was a kind of "miscue" here: unless a reader knows who Moe Szyslak is, they had to get to the end of the sentence before they found out that "played" meant "voiced", so I changed it to "voiced".
- Understandable, but she had a live-action role with the Simpsons as muppet-like characters. I have now indicated this was a live-action segment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are people who don't know who Moe Szyslak is? Well I never..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "She was ranked ... fifth on their 2012 list with [earnings of] $45 million. Billboard ranked her number fourteen on their 2012 list of top 40 earners, grossing nearly $12 million": So I'm guessing the $12 million wasn't all she earned ... what was the $12 million for?
- Tour earnings. Should the $12 million be scrapped? Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "She was initially so distraught over their divorce that she contemplated suicide." The source says:
"That song is evident of how tough it really was at a certain point. I asked myself, 'Do I want to endure? Should I continue living?'" Perry says. "All the songs are real-life moments."
- That does indeed suggest suicidal thoughts, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right or wrong, some readers are going to feel that this is insensitive. Also, it's stated as a fact rather than attributing her ... better would be: "... she talked about contemplating suicide".
- I brought this up during the peer review. My initial concern was that the article said "suicide" but the source did not contain that word, and per WP:BLP it needed to go. Snuggums assured me that the claim could be backed up by additional sources that could be added to the article if challenged and supplied links to several. Please see Talk:Katy Perry#2010-12: Teenage Dream for the full discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If using other sources that state it more directly, (International Business Times, The Christian Post, MTV), which would be best? Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go with the IBT source. In my view, it's the least likely one to cover Katy Perry as subject material, yet it puts "Katy Perry reveals that she considered suicide after divorcing Russell Brand" in a box separate to the other prose, citing Reuters. You can't get much more obviously sourced than that, can you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought this up during the peer review. My initial concern was that the article said "suicide" but the source did not contain that word, and per WP:BLP it needed to go. Snuggums assured me that the claim could be backed up by additional sources that could be added to the article if challenged and supplied links to several. Please see Talk:Katy Perry#2010-12: Teenage Dream for the full discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "and subsequently reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100". Avoid the word "subsequently"; some readers take it to mean "immediately after" and some read it as "much later". I didn't reword it here because I didn't know which you meant.
- I removed "subsequently" anyway, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "5th Top Global Recording Artist of 2013, making her the highest-ranking woman to chart on the list": I'm having trouble making sense of any of that.
- I've tweaked this a bit. According to the source, the rankings are as follows:
- One Direction
- Eminem
- Justin Timberlake
- Bruno Mars
- Katy Perry
- Pink
- Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
- Rihanna
- Michael Bublé
- Daft Punk
- Hope it looks better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perry lists Carole King, Bonnie Raitt, and Joni Mitchell as musical aspirations": I don't know what that means. I do understand the next bit ... "and intends to become "more of a Joni Mitchell", releasing folk and acoustic music." ... because you explicitly say what she's aspiring to.
- "involve sexual lyrics and love as themes": You don't mean that the lyrics are themes, right? I'd probably say "include themes of sex and love"
- XD :P of course..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "co-written songs for other recording artists": for, or with?
- For Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed this to "co-written songs recorded by other artists" just to clarify. S△M talk 15:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sam :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits.Well done ... the writing was lively and readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining points: "5th Top Global Recording Artist of 2013" should probably be "fifth on the list of Top Global Recording Artists of 2013". On the point about suicide, none of the sources given say that an expert evaluated her as suicidal, they all attribute that to her. We should follow the sources, and attribute it to her, rather than putting it in Wikipedia's voice ... for instance: "She was initially distraught over their divorce, and said that she contemplated suicide." There are some downsides to using the word "suicide" instead of the words she actually used, but "suicide" was used in the sources, and I'm not seeing any evidence that she objected, so I don't object either. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One more: the $12 million figure should either be scrapped, or described as tour earnings. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any other concerns or does this article have your support, Dank? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a reviewer these days, just a copyeditor. The prose looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dank :), I'll count that as a support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not for the nominator, or any other editor, to ascribe an explicit support for promotion to any commentator. If the commentator wants to be clear about it, they will be. If not, the FAC coordinator will still take their comments into account when determining consensus to promote (or otherwise). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Ian- jumped to conclusions too quickly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. It's important not to be too focussed on expressions of support. By convention a few are certainly helpful and indeed necessary for the coordinators to judge consensus to promote but, as the FAC instructions state, resolving critical comments -- whether that results in declarations of support or not -- is just as important, and that was evident in your dealings with Dank even before he added his support. Anyway, all's well that ends well... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the changes I made while copyediting. I'd appreciate knowing if anyone can think of any time we wouldn't want to change the "before" phrase into something like the "after" phrase:
- included into: included in
- her first semester of her freshman year: the first semester of her freshman year
- She waned away from gospel music and began transversing into: Transitioning from gospel music to
- [a band], who was working: [a band], that was working (or: [a band], who were working)
- After being dropped by Columbia, [Angelica] recommended Perry: After being dropped by Columbia, Perry was recommended [by Angelica]
- She requested to hold: She requested holding off
- viewers criticized it for the amount of cleavage Perry had on display in the video.: viewers criticized Perry's exposed cleavage.
- conflicting career schedules and him wanting to have children before she was ready: conflicting career schedules and his desire to have children before she was ready
- Speaking on Perry's fans, Keith Caulfield of Billboard stated ... "... interaction with her adoring KatyCats.": Keith Caulfield of Billboard stated ... "... interaction with her adoring KatyCats." [It's also possible to add "(fans)" after KatyCats.]
- She confirmed that she voted against Proposition 8, an amendment that would legally define marriage: She confirmed that she voted against Proposition 8, an amendment (ultimately ruled unconstitutional) that legally defined marriage
- and appeared in a video clip for the "Chime For Change" campaign that aims to spread female empowerment in April 2013.: and appeared in April 2013 in a video clip for the "Chime For Change" campaign that aims to spread female empowerment.
- She has also criticized America's lack of free health care, and stated that it drove her "absolutely crazy".: She has also said that America's lack of free health care drove her "absolutely crazy".
- Perry supported President Barack Obama in his run for re-election, due to his support for same-sex marriage: ... re-election, and praised his support for same-sex marriage
- [Tony Abbott's] opposition towards gay marriage: [Tony Abbott's] opposition to gay marriage
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Nikkimaria
spotchecks not done
- FN5: page?
- Added URL Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FN36: page formatting
- Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Check consistency of wikilinking - for example, Capital is linked in FN84 but not FN80
- I was told to link the first instance a work is used within refs, but not subsequent ones Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but you need to do that consistently - in the example I gave, the first instance is not linked but a subsequent one is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FN86: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Nikkimaria, The A.V. Club is non-print source and therefore should not be italicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check our article on that source, you will find that we generally italicize it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why that is the case, but I actually used an even better ref (Entertainment Weekly) in place Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this "don't italicize if it's not in print" rule has been spread erroneously from user to user during GA reviews and the like, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics is explicit in guiding that the actual medium of publication or presentation is not a factor. It expands on this saying online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized. —JennKR | ☎ 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting..... if I remember right, Jenn, you said this past January not to italicize sources like MTV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did I? I think I was right to, as looking over some featured/GA work it's not formatted as such. This is probably the result of a discussion (the guideline notes that websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis). Nevertheless, the rule to not use italics if the publication does not exist in print is not a consistent one. —JennKR | ☎ 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see..... in any case, feel free to leave comments on how the article currently stands as a candidate for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add here regarding italicizing MTV. That is a channel first and foremost and then a music webzine unlike Slant Magazine. Hence MTV should not be italicized while the latter could be. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note taken, IndianBio. How does everything look now, Nikkimaria and Ian Rose? Is this ready to become FA once spotchecks are complete?? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know one or two reviewers have done the odd spotcheck of sources but if Nikki wouldn't mind conducting a few herself that come up clear then I think we can wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- "She was banned from watching MTV while growing up, and discovered popular music while watching television at her friends' houses." - the source says instead that friends snuck CDs to her, and doesn't mention MTV or TV at all
- Not seeing anything about comedic timing in FN90. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed, Nikki. Any suggestions yourself, Ian? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, courtesy pinging Jenn and Peter for if they have any last-minute comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GrahamColm (talk · contribs) since you recently came by this page, what are your thoughts on promoting this? Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If Nikki is comfortable with the results of her spotcheck then so am I; assuming that's the case, I'd probably get round to promoting tomorrow when I do my usual EOW walk-through of open noms -- unless Graham beats me to it... ;-) . Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JennKR
Resolved concerns from JennKR
|
---|
There is nothing much to do here. The article's strongest attributes are its conciseness—an achievement in itself when you look to other female pop-singer BLPs—and its use of high-quality sources. I'm also glad to see some books have been used. I just have a few comments:
OK JennKR, that should do it. Thanks for the last-minute polishes to my (at least right now) current masterpiece :3. I spent lots of time on finding top-quality sources as well, including books. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
Support—FA coords should note that I am somewhat involved having completed a peer review of Katy Perry in January 2014, although I have contributed minimally to the actual article. In its current state, it is well written and researched, and as someone with familiar with Perry's work, I believe it does not neglect any important aspects of her life and career. The references are consistent and well-selected. —JennKR | ☎ 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.