Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Part of Me (Katy Perry song)/archive2

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 20:15, 7 August 2012 [1].

Part of Me (Katy Perry song) edit

Nominator(s): teman13 ^TALK^{CONTRIBUTIONS} 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It did not pass before in the original FA nomination, but after a thorough copy-edit, I believe that it is up to FA criteria. teman13 ^TALK^{CONTRIBUTIONS} 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - your previous FAC for this article closed less than two weeks ago. Did you have leave from a delegate to renominate early, as required by the instructions at the top of WP:FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to close the nomination because a copy-edit was going on still and I thought it was over at the time. teman13 ^TALK^{CONTRIBUTIONS} 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why is there a second archive page created when this is the third? Till 13:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the one that I removed and I just made a new one which wasn't the smartest thing.. teman13 ^TALK^{CONTRIBUTIONS} 22:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this as best I can, by deleting the extra nomination page and renaming this one. I will let this nomination proceed – we all make mistakes sometimes – but please follow the FAC instructions carefully in future. Graham Colm (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll make sure I won't make this mistake again! teman13 ^TALK^{CONTRIBUTIONS} 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Use a consistent date format
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
FN26: italicization, missing publisher
FN33: publisher?
Compare formatting on FNs 44 and 46
Compare formatting on FNs 49 and 55
Compare formatting on FNs 51 and 57
Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers/magazines
Compare formatting on FNs 72 and 73, and on other examples make sure like sources are formatted the same way
Fn88: bare URL
FN103: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've formatted the refs as best as I possicle can. As far as the About.com source, it is published by the New York Times Company and has been used on numerous FA articles such as Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), Hollaback Girl and Irreplaceable. As far as PopCrush, it is very reliable and written by established journalists. Also the information is crucial to this article because of the song's genre, there is not many reliable sources that can provide the information that it does. If you go on the website you can look up the writer's bios and their degrees in music journalism as well as the site's criteria for hiring journalists and their policies for articles. Tay ^(uhoh) 07:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

What is the significance of this? "It was the twentieth song to debut atop the Billboard Hot 100, and achieved that feat almost exactly a year after the previous, Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" (2011)." What is the relevance here of Lady Gaga? --Efe (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed. Tay ^(uhoh) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.