Talk:Hey Hey Hey/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: UrbanJE (talk · contribs) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm picking this up for a review. I hope you're okay with this @Cartoon network freak: –UrbanJE (talk) 18:40 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So let's do it.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Comment: The article is very well illustrated, specially in the music video section. However, as portraits, those pictures of Joan of Arch and Marie Antoinette should have more detailed descriptions instead of just "left" and "right". You could insert the year/period when these portraits were depicted with their painter name just to make the section perfectly clear and detailed.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Final comments: Wow at this great, organized and well-written article. You did an outstanding job by expanding this. I'm about to pass it, but I need you to clarify something: have you ever discussed about its release in Italy? As far as I'm concerned, sending a song to radio stations in Italy, does not make it a single. You can see Beyoncé's I Care as an example.

You can remove this information or open a discussion on its talk-page if you do not agree.

@UrbanJE: Hi there and thank you for your review! I already opened a discussion on the talk page of Perry's discography and there was no real outcome on listing "Hey Hey Hey" as a single or not. Capitol Records (or any other label of Perry's) also has not made any statement regarding the release of "Hey Hey Hey". With this being said, it still remains unknown if it was a single or not. However, there is a music video which makes it more likely to be a single, and it was also considered for release to UK radios [1]. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Okay! As this point was already discussed, I have no reasons to do not approve this article. Buuuut, I still need you to address my comment/suggestion above regarding the music video section. What do you think? Can you do it for me? –UrbanJE (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UrbanJE: Oh sorry! I did not see that back then, but I believe I've done it now. Is there anything else to fix? Best regards and thank you again, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: No problems. It looks good now. I'm passing this! Congrats. ;D –UrbanJE (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.