Template:Did you know nominations/Ain't It Fun (Paramore song)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ain't It Fun (Paramore song)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the bridge of "Ain't It Fun" by Paramore features a gospel choir?

Reviewed: Katy Perry

5x expanded by Prism (talk). Self nominated at 12:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

Article is 1,500+ characters in length, has been significantly expanded within the past five days, no close paraphrasing found, hook is backed by album liner notes but is not attention-grabbing. Entertainment Weekly does not support it, and I feel skeptical about "HelloGiggles" as a ref. Try going into maybe something about the recording process or song's commercial history. Names of choir people involved could also help. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

HelloGiggles, although recently created, is certainly reliable. Although some content of it is user-generated, this post was verified and it was posted by a staff member. I'm pretty sure that this site is reliable because it gives a full disclosure of its staff and owners. I wouldn't include this interview if it wasn't published by a staff editor. However, maybe the next hook is better:

ALT1: ... that American band Paramore's "Ain't It Fun" became their first song to reach the top 10 of the US Billboard Hot 100? — prism △ 13:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

MUCH better. Now passing. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not a 5x expansion. Snuggums, the criterion is not "significantly expanded", but a minimum 5x expansion of prose characters. You should be using one of the standard tools like DYKcheck, which can distinguish between what DYK considers prose and does not. According to DYKcheck, the article currently has 16559 prose characters, which is not even a 4x expansion from the 4431 prose characters five days prior to nomination; that would require 21155 prose characters. The article is currently being reviewed for Good Article status, so if it passes, it will be eligible without further expansion, but if it does not pass, it will need a 4596 character expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. DYK on hold, and will try out that tool. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

article has now been promoted to GA. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 21:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)