Talk:It Takes Two (Katy Perry song)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: prism △ 10:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

General overview

Disambiguation links (per Dablinks)

• Not present.

External links (per Checklinks)

• No links needing correction.

Original research

Background and recording

• The link for Elle UK does not feature any of the text referenced. That probably is included in the magazine, so either cite the issue or remove the information all along.

Yeah I have the magazine, do you know the template for sourcing a magazine?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See Cite journal. prism △ 18:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Composition

• Chicago Tribune does not state it is a ballad, just that the song genre is pop soul. Remove the ballad part or add a reference to it.
• Entertainmentwise does not say that it's about taking part of the blame for a failed relationship, it just says it's about having two sides to a break-up. While that may be implied, it's not said directly.

 Done

Charts

• GDC is OR. Substitute with Gaon Download Chart.

 Done

References

• R4 – remove date. (not access date, just the date)
• R6 – publisher parameter should be Entertainmentwise. Gigwise (Digital Giant).

 Done

Prose, redundancies, and visual aspect

Composition

• Image description should be "Emeli Sandé (pictured)..."

 Done

Credits and personnel

• Recording → Recording places

 Done

Critical reception

• Gigwise → [[Gigwise|Entertainmentwise]]

 Done

Second read-through

Comments

1. First comments: Just address the above comments and we'll be good to go. prism △ 13:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Other suggestions: Expand on how the song has made impact (if any) on society, the music industry, and her career. The one chart listed comes across as a beginning to such an explanation that was left unfinished. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've fixed all the issues above, I think.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose other charts and such will be included when they include the track. Just seems empty to have only one. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If this charts anywhere else or is released as a single, more charts can be included :)--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would it be a problem to postpone declaring this a GA until more charts are added? It feels rather incomplete. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not all songs have a huge impact. It impacted one chart, similar to many other GA's. However, since this isn't part of the review, there's no point in further discussing it.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, your reason to cancel the GA result is a bit ridiculous. Why should we decide against not recognizing an article for its good quality just because it didn't impact many charts worldwide? It's an album track. Even worse for that matter—it's from a deluxe edition. Not many people will know it anyways. I'm going to pass the article regardless of the charts situation. prism △ 20:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Result

✓ Pass prism △ 20:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.