Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katy Perry/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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

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 edit

Resolved concerns from Chasewc91
Infobox and lead
  • Infobox lists Perry's genres as pop, rock, and electronic. Musical style and themes only notes "elements of" these genres. There is a difference between elements/influences and an artist/work actually being a certain genre. Perry is not known as a rock or electronic artist and I'd like to see sources that say otherwise if these stay.
  • While she is most often described as a pop singer, One of the Boys is mainly a pop rock album. Also, NME called her a "a ballsy rock chick" while The Daily Telegraph talks about her "rock chick voice". I'll give "electronic" more thought, though..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but I think the NME link can support the "rock" she's done in past works for infobox inclusion. I'll remove "electronic" from infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider trimming the third paragraph and moving most of its first half to the Achievements section. It leans towards too much detail for an introduction.
  • In that case, I'm not sure which bits should be in both lead and "achievements" SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should remove the 5x Platinum singles, 2012 Woman of the Year, and 69 consecutive weeks in the top ten from the lead. And possibly combine the awards/nominations and Forbes into one sentence. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and career beginnings
  • "She has a younger brother named David, who is a singer, and an older sister Angela." I think there should be a comma after "sister", but I may be wrong.
  • I would add a comma: a lack of one implies that she has more than one older sister. I also think it reads better with one. Acalamari 12:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section relies too heavily on partial quotes and reads very awkwardly. Consider these changes:
  • "Perry described her parents as 'uniquely strict'" → "Perry described her parents as strict" (no quotes)
  • "focus on most 'secular music' was discouraged in the family's home" → "focus on most secular music was discouraged in the family's home". Quote is not necessary.
  • "Perry began singing while 'copycatting' Angela" → "Perry began singing while imitating Angela". The sentence still reads a little awkwardly, actually. Maybe something like "Perry, [imitating / following] her sister, began singing"?
  • "During her teenage years, Perry said she 'tried to be like the typical California girl', trying out surfing and getting deeply involved in the local rollerskating scene." I would rewrite this whole sentence - something more along the lines of, "During her teenage years, Perry became involved in surfing and rollerskating in an attempt to be 'the typical California girl'."
  • "David described her as 'kind of a tomboy' during that period." → "David described her as tomboy-like during that [this?] period."
  • Changes here are much better. I missed these the first go-around, also take a look at:
  • "Perry stated that she found it "tough" as a child to frequently switch between schools" → "Perry found it difficult as a child to frequently change schools"
  • "Her family 'barely got by' financially" → "Her family struggled financially"
  • "she sometimes felt "out of place" during the early part of her childhood." Just drop the quote, or change "out of place" to something like "alienated". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Hudson and The Matrix
  • Remove "career beginnings" from the title of the last section and change this section title to "Career beginnings". Katy Hudson is not a well-known album and her project with The Matrix is little-known and insignificant to her career. And this section mostly describes Perry's activity before her commercial breakthrough.
  • Done..... hesitantly..... while not as well-known as her later material, I will say that Katy Hudson is certainly more widely known than The Matrix. I included these as Katy Hudson was a critical part of her early career, and included "career beginnings" in the previous section as she began performing publicly after getting a guitar for her 13th birthday. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perry completed her General Educational Development" → "Perry completed her GED" (acronym is more well-known than the full name).
  • The peer review previously advised against that, so I'll give this some thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would at the very least put "GED" in parentheses following "General Educational Development". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just point out that the acronym is only more well-known if you were educated in the United States. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Katy Perry has a large fanbase in the US who will be reading this article, so I don't see the problem with listing "GED" in parentheses after "General Educational Development". –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, she briefly performed as Katheryn Perry to avoid confusion with actress Kate Hudson" I've read before that she chose this name because it was her mother's maiden name; would be good to include, even if her mother's name is already listed in the section above.
  • Indeed that was part of the reason. However, I'm not sure if they way it's included now reads well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played the love interest of her then-boyfriend Gym Class Heroes lead singer Travie McCoy" → "played the love interest of her then-boyfriend, Gym Class Heroes lead singer Travie McCoy"
One of the Boys
  • Again, section title. I think it would be more helpful to describe what happened in her life during this time in her life instead of just reducing it to an album title. Especially for readers who aren't familiar with Perry's work. "Commercial breakthrough" would be good. I won't list this multiple times, but consider doing this with the Teenage Dream and Prism sections as well - especially the former, where it might be useful to note her marriage to Russell Brand.
  • Restored the previous title of "Breakthrough with One of the Boys"- some editor had previously removed it. I'll include "marriage" for Teenage Dream, but am not sure what to say for Prism section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Prism is fine; the album hasn't been out for long and she hasn't done much else in the time period. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "JohnJay & Rich radio show" should this be italicized?
  • Since television shows are italicized, I have a feeling radio shows should be as well. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the Boys, released on June 17, 2008, garnered mixed critical reviews and reached number nine on the US Billboard 200. The album reached number nine on the Billboard 200."
  • "and topping charts in Germany and Canada, among other countries." might be good to specify which countries, but regardless, citations are needed to verify other #1 peaks.
  • I meant that you needed sources to verify the #1 peaks in the "other countries" mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian chartings can be found in the second page of the URL I linked, gonna search for a different Germany ref if needed Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other countries besides Canada and Germany. The article says it reached #1 in Canada and Germany, "among other countries". That part needs citation and it would probably be even better to actually name those countries, or rewrite this whole sentence to say something like "it reached #1 in X countries" (with refs for every country it topped the charts in). –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later singles 'Thinking of You' and 'Waking Up in Vegas' achieved moderate success." source only shows their peaks on the US charts, doesn't include an assessment of their performances.
  • Also, refs for Billboard chart histories such as the last two bullet points should include the specific chart linked to as well. ie: "Katy Perry – Chart history: The Hot 100".
  • In the actual ref, the name of the chart should be included in the "title" parameter. like I said, "Chart history: The Hot 100", "Chart history: Billboard 200", etc. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She requested to hold the release until the fourth single of One of the Boys had been commissioned, but The Matrix was released onto iTunes on January 27, 2009, despite her wishes." I would replace the bolded text with "prior to the release of fourth single 'Waking Up in Vegas'" - the "against her wishes" part isn't in the source and doesn't seem "neutral" (for lack of a proper description - it just feels "off"). and move the citation to before this change, since the release date of "Vegas" isn't discussed in the source either.
Teenage Dream
  • "69 consecutive weeks in the Top 10 of the Hot 100" → "69 consecutive weeks in the top ten of the Hot 100"
  • "In December, Perry played Moe Szyslak's girlfriend" I would include 2010 after December, even though a September 2010 incident was mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph, since the paragraphs in this section jump around to and from various years in the 2010-12 time range.
  • "playing a woman known as 'Honey'." quotes aren't necessary.
  • "featuring herself and Andy Samberg" → "featuring her and Andy Samberg" (?)
  • We might have to let someone else make a suggestion if "starring her" or "featuring her" do not work well Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starring herself" sounded better actually, in my opinion. I'm not 100% sure which would be more correct grammatically. S△M talk 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prism
  • "The fourth single from the album was 'Birthday' followed by 'This Is How We Do'" → "the fourth and fifth singles from the album were 'Birthday' and 'This Is How We Do', respectively."
  • "On November 30, 2012, Billboard dubbed Perry as their 'Woman of the Year'." and "Forbes ranked her #5 on their 'Top-Earning Women In Music' list for 2012" Why are these in 2013-present?
  • November 2012's Billboard "Woman of the Year" is still in Prism. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Top-Earning Women In Music" actually need the quotations? They aren't usually used for compiled lists, such as the Forbes Celebrity 100, for example. S△M talk 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Influences
  • "She cites the band's front man, Freddie Mercury, as her 'biggest influence'" Quote isn't necessary, not unique or notable language. And I believe "frontman" is one word.
  • "the Beatles' album" → "The Beatles' album"
  • "ABBA and the Cardigans" → "ABBA and The Cardigans"
If the Beatles are written as "the Beatles" shouldn't the Cardigans be formatted in the same way? It just looks odd to write "the Beatles" and then use the capital T on "the" for the Cardigans. S△M talk 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - use "the" for consistency - I know this has been edit warred over to death elsewhere, but consensus seems to be finally settling on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lower cases it is. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style and themes
  • "Her use of idioms and metaphors in her lyrics has been criticized – with Randall Roberts..." → "Her use of idioms and metaphors in her lyrics has been criticized by Randall Roberts..." (no other critics are cited)
Politics
  • "While not identifying strictly with religion, she has also stated, 'I pray all the time – for self-control, for humility.'" SNUGGUMS, I know that we had disagreements on where this should be included not long ago, but I still don't think this is it. Feels very out of place in this section as it doesn't have anything to do with her political work and religion ≠ politics.
  • Hmm..... the interesting thing is that political matters often include aspects of religion (i.e. a politician's campaigns). If need be, I could remove the "While not identifying strictly with religion" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would have a point if Perry cited religion as the basis for any of her political views. I still personally think it fits best in the "early life" section as her early faith is discussed there. It can be added as a parenthetical and still work, I think. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean by "parenthetical" in this instance, but I could use something like "Perry later stated that she continues to pray 'for self-control, for humility'". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By parenthetical, I mean add it to the "early life" section and put the statement in (parentheses). Also, the way it's now worded goes against the RfC here where it was decided to include the fact that Perry no longer identifies as Christian. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry's quote: "the fact that America doesn't have free health care drives me fucking absolutely crazy, and is so wrong." → "the fact that America doesn't have free health care drives me ... absolutely crazy, and is so wrong." (per WP:PROFANE, and in line with MOS:ELLIPSIS)
  • "Fuck" isn't the most offensive word ever, but I could also paraphrase this to something like "Perry has also criticized America's lack of free health care, and stated that it drove her 'absolutely crazy'". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to note that Perry directly called out Tony Abbott when he called into a radio interview of hers, per the source that discusses her criticism of him.
  • Great, but the period should be inside the quote since it's a full sentence. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements
  • "She has earned eleven Grammy nominations, two American Music Awards, four MTV Video Music Awards, fourteen People's Choice Awards, and two Guinness World Records." odd to list Grammy nominations in the same sentence (especially before) awards that she has actually won. I'd either nix the Grammy note or move it to another sentence.
  • Better, but just change "Grammy nominations" to "Grammy Awards" since it currently reads "nominated for ... nominations". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of this overlaps with the Life and career sub-sections; I would move all but the most significant material out of the earlier sections and keep it here.
  • I thought there was more overlap. Maybe some of it was edited out while/after I left my initial comments or maybe I imagined it. Anyway, the "69 consecutive weeks" thing repeats three times between the lead, Teenage Dream section, and achievements. I already suggested you remove it from the lead, but it should be removed from one of the others. Your choice. Keeping it in the Teenage Dream section is fine since it's relevant to that album, but I'm not opposed to it being in Achievements either, since it's a feat that only she has accomplished which is notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She trails behind only Rihanna and Taylor Swift." drop "behind"
  • "As of May 2014, she holds the record for most 5× Platinum certified singles in the United States. Her songs ... have each sold over 5 million digital copies." source only mentions the sales of these songs, not certifications.

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]

Comments from WikiRedactor edit

Resolved concerns from WikiRedactor
  • Is it really necessary to include the "near" in the birthplace parameter in the infobox? You mention the "near" in the first section of the article, so I don't find it particularly needed in the infobox.
  • I thought it could be useful since she is commonly said to be born there while in reality her birth hospital was just outside of Santa Barbara. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction, can you mention that Billboard is for United States charts at its first mention?
  • "Billboard dubbed her 2012's Woman of the Year. She has been listed in the Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music" for 2011, 2012, and 2013." For better blow, I'd suggest merging the sentences like "She was dubbed Billboard's Woman of the Year in 2012, and has been listed in the Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music" for 2011, 2012, and 2013."
  • It might be helpful to state the specific years she was married to Russell Brand in the introduction, or even "the early 2010s" if you want to keep it brief.
  • Based on the content about Katy pursuing a music career beginning in 1999, wouldn't that make her "years active" parameter 1999–present instead of 1997–present?
  • I used 1997 as she told GQ that she started playing her guitar in public to earn money at age 13. I guess this is simply a question of what 1997–1999 counts for Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some instances of inconsistencies regarding the use of "US" and "U.S.", please pick one style to use throughout the article.
  • Perhaps this is just me being silly, but wouldn't The Sims 3: Katy Perry's Sweet Treats technically be considered a stuff pack? Maybe you could wikilink "stuff pack" to the article for "expansion pack"?
  • I think the 2012 Woman of the Year information has been misplaced in the Prism section.
  • As Chase previously mentioned, this was indeed misplaced. Now fixed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since she and John Mayer already broke up and won't be getting married, it is still necessary to address the engagement rumors?
  • That bit was first added before they split due to high speculation that they were engaged, but I've now removed- the article at one point also included debunked rumors of being engaged to Travie McCoy shortly before their relationship ended, but I've given this thought and decided you're right Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like a little bit of a stretch to include the The X Factor UK template at the end of the article since she was only a guest judge for a brief second?

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]

WikiRedactor look now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 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]

Comments from Ritchie333 edit

  • 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]

Comments from Prism edit

  • 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
Last batch
  • "number-one Billboard songs" Shouldn't this state Billboard Hot 100?
  • "contract" → "record contract/deal"
  • Went with "deal"
  • "Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music"" → Forbes list (...)
  • "has also ventured" remove also
  • "In July 2011, she (...) In July 2012, she" This is a bit repetitive
  • "In July 2012, she released a 3D autobiographical documentary film, Katy Perry: Part of Me, which concentrated on her life as a touring artist and the dissolution of her brief marriage to English actor and comedian Russell Brand in the early 2010" is too long. Maybe 3D autobiographical could be removed (3D isn't needed, and autobiographical is already implied)
  • "Perry described her parents as strict, while Angela reminisced of their upbringing as "God's way or no way", resulting in household bans of popular products" This implies that they banned products due to their daughters' descriptions of them

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]
Thank you Prism! I do agree this is easily my best work yet, and is unquestionably the article I'm most proud of so far. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IPadPerson edit

  • 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]

Comments from Retrohead edit

Resolved concerns from Retrohead
Intro

Finally got the time to review this article, so I'll jump straight to my concerns:

  • Katy Perry is originally from Santa Barbara, California.–does "originally" has a specific meaning in this sentence?
  • It was used to indicate she grew up in Santa Barbara, but I could remove if unneeded Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might remove it.--Retrohead (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to do so, but that article has no references- red flag Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention was for readers to know that "secular" means non-religious, if they already haven't.--Retrohead (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if you don't want to link it, leave it that way.--Retrohead (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we use brackets for the release year of Katy Hudson→(2001)
  • The following year, she moved to Los Angeles–I think we can swap the clauses so it can read "She moved to LA the following year"
  • She also worked on a solo album with Glen Ballard that was recorded but never released–She recorded an album with Glen Ballard that was never released. (the reason why the album wasn't released could be added)
  • signed a recording contract with Capitol Records–"recording" could be easily dropped since we know that Capitol is a label
  • her single "I Kissed a Girl"–the instead of her (excessively repeating her)
  • re-released–reissued would be a better fit, since the re-release had modified tracklist and artwork
  • structures such as early/late July aren't recommended for the lead; naming just the month and year is a better option
Life and career
  • Her parents are both reformed Christians–both is extra
  • She has a younger brother named David, who is a singer–Her younger brother David is a singer,
  • I would go with something like that if I knew for sure what Angela works as Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the older sister's profession?
  • the early part of her childhood–early childhood
  • as focus on most secular music–we can omit "focus on most"
  • incorporated–included
  • in the pursuit of a career in music–to pursuit music career
  • in support of it–to support it
  • Perry saw a small amount of success–Perry had/enjoyed minor success...
  • provided background vocals–you can use recorded to shake the prose a bit (provided is used in the previous sentence)
  • One of the Boys, released on June 17, 2008–we know it is 2008 since the year is mentioned in the previous sentence; same for "Hot n Cold"
  • After touring on the Warped Tour 2008–after finishing/concluding instead of "touring"
  • Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry told MTV in August 2008–the date is irrelevant in this context
  • was cut and does not appear in the film–"was cut and" is extra; since it doesn't appear in the film, it would be logical to assume that it was cut down
  • "California Gurls" served as the lead single–was is a better fit, since we used the verb "to serve" in the previous sentence (Perry being a judge on American Idol)
  • She released the album's second U.S. chart-topping single, the title track "Teenage Dream", before releasing the album on August 24, 2010.–split this sentence; you can pair the second clause with the next sentence (something like "Released on August 24, 2010, Teenage Dream debuted at number one on the Billboard 200")
  • omit "The success of Teenage Dream continued with"
  • you have several "2011"and "2012" that are extra; for example, if you write "January 1, 2011", you don't have to mention 2011 in "January 2" the following sentence, since the reader assumes we are talking about the same year. This is until you mention "2012", and you continue discussing Katy's career during that year.
  • her scene was uploaded to YouTube earlier–cut earlier
  • with Robyn serving as the episode's musical guest–cut serving
  • She was ranked #3–I personally don't prefer "#3"; we can go with "third on the Forbes"; also put 2011 right before Forbes list→2011 Forbes list
  • she told L'Uomo Vogue in June 2012–2012 shouldn't be here, since it was mentioned in the previous sentence (November 2012, Billboard)
  • Not done if removed, some readers might think it refers to June 2013 Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smurfs 2 earned $347,545,360 in theaters–Does the gross revenue really matters here? Can we say it was a financial success, although the critics disliked it?
  • Wondering if I should also do this with the first Smurfs film Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements
  • many awards and nominations–numerous fits more than many
  • That was previously deemed POV and thus discouraged during GAN Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry has also been nominated for eleven Grammy Awards–received eleven Grammy nominations
  • Perry has sold more than 11 million albums worldwide. Do we have the accurate number? More than 11 million can vary from 11,1 to 11,9.
  • Turns out I misread the sources given, they simply say 11 million. If I can find more recent statistics, I'll include those. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your points, Retrohead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artistry
  • Perry's musical styling–I think "style" is more accurate
  • she aspired to be like Amy Grant–we should specify what "to be like" means; I suppose she wanted to sound like Amy Grant, but in the current state, it means Perry wanted to look like Grant
  • she was introduced to Queen's "Killer Queen"–heard is definitely a better choice
  • since is extra
  • can we have the comma in "frequent collaborator, Ballard" omitted? It kinda breaks the flow.
  • Some suggestions on the opening sentence from musical style and themes: Although Perry's music incorporates pop, rock, electronic, dance, and disco, Perry's debut album, Katy Hudson, is primarily a gospel record.
  • we should link pop rock, as a different subgenre (if it's not already linked) and comma after it
  • living in the present sounds awkward to a certain degree; maybe replace it with themes from everyday life (or simply everyday life)?
  • vocals as "processed staccato blips" on Teenage Dream–move "on Teenage Dream" before "as"
Other ventures
  • the money generated from tickets to her Prismatic World Tour will go to UNICEF–I see this was published in January 15 this year, so do we have the information whether the money went to Unicef? If we do, you should re-word it in past simple tense.
  • Not yet, but will probably have answers after the second leg of the tour ends. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as a selection of her own songs–I think here we should have "a number of her songs"; if we go with selection, we should list which songs she particularly performed, which I think would be too detail-y.
  • overall, this is pretty well-written section, perhaps the strongest facet of the article. It reads how a standardized encyclopedic article should read.
  • 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 edit

  • 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 edit

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
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]
Thank you IndianBio :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

  • 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 edit

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]

(→) 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]
      • We might have to look for other sources, Sam. IndianBio, what are your thoughts since you browsed through KP3D to find individual times? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:37, 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]

Comments from Dank edit

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".
  • "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]
  • "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?
  • "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."

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • "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.
  • "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:
  1. One Direction
  2. Eminem
  3. Justin Timberlake
  4. Bruno Mars
  5. Katy Perry
  6. Pink
  7. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
  8. Rihanna
  9. Michael Bublé
  10. 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.
  • As it turns out, this only mentions Joni Mitchell, so I've removed the others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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"
  • "co-written songs for other recording artists": for, or with?
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 edit

spotchecks not done

  • FN5: page?
  • FN36: page formatting
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 edit

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:

  • You list rock as a genre—do you think she is a rock artist, or more rock-influenced?
  • Considering that Katy Hudson is a gospel-rock album, One of the Boys is a pop-rock album, NME called her a "ballsy rock chick", seems appropriate to include. Refer to my response above to Chasewc91's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 22, 2009, Perry recorded a live album titled MTV Unplugged" → This reads strangely, because it implies that Perry chose this title. There are hundreds of MTV Unplugged albums, so it would be much better to say that Perry performed an MTV Unplugged special, and the audio was released as an album.
  • "After the marriage was officially dissolved in February 2012," → This isn't in the Vogue Italia source provided. What that source does say is that divorce proceedings began at that time, but that isn't the same as when a marriage is "dissolved". This would occur on the official date of divorce (or nullification), which according to MTV is July 16. — JennKR | ☎ 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terminology is still problematic. You need to mention three dates: they separated in December 2011, divorce proceedings began in February 2012 and they were divorced in July 2012. Try not to stray to far from this, everyday terms like "dissolved", "finalized" and "ended" have very different legal meanings, and its important to be precise when discussing legal processes as to not misrepresent them. —JennKR | ☎ 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the International Business Times source says that the "divorce was finalized" (meaning that the divorce proceedings were agreed on), this is not the same as being divorced. (Therefore after mentioning their separation say something on the lines of "their divorce was finalized in February 2012 and their marriage was dissolved that July".) —JennKR | ☎ 18:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPI and St. James say it all ended February, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ended? Their marriage? You could be of the opinion that their marriage ended in December 2011. The law sees this differently, the only thing that "ends" in February are the discussions between Perry and Brand. They are not divorced at this point. What follows is the six-month waiting period that the State of California ascribes, and hence they are divorced. This is why it is important to be careful and very specific about the terms you use about this process. —JennKR | ☎ 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes- according to UPI and St. James, the marriage ended February 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source from the International Business Times and the MTV source I provided earlier contradict this. —JennKR | ☎ 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their divorce was finalized in February 2012 and their marriage was dissolved that July" ← Can this be inserted? (Or something close to this?) —JennKR | ☎ 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As credible as MTV's reputation is, something doesn't feel right about contesting the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (I just found the full title), especially since it is from the most recent edition. Maybe just not mentioning dates at all could work or perhaps saying just 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have the quote from the encyclopedia? I'm wondering whether it may mischaracterize what happened in February. The State of California details their jurisdiction's process on their website, which reads You cannot legally end your marital status until at least 6 months after the case is filed and the respondent has been served with a copy of the petitioner’s paperwork. And of course, December to February is only three months, so a divorce simply cannot happen in this time. —JennKR | ☎ 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to consult a library to find the book, but they said the marriage was "16 months". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I think they have mischaracterized what happened in February. Are you still opposed to detailing these three dates? —JennKR | ☎ 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only because there's apparently a conflict of dates between sources. I've now simply said 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I would have preferred you to have been more specific (as the laws of California show that divorce cannot have happened in the time frame St. James suggests), it's better than it once was. —JennKR | ☎ 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you JennKR :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Katy_Perry/archive1&oldid=1142499700"