Talk:Perfect Celebrity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Perfect Celebrity is currently a Songs good article nominee. Nominated by CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) at 00:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC) This article is ready to be reviewed in accordance with the good article criteria. Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review the article and decide if it should be listed as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the instructions. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perfect Celebrity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
![WikiProject icon](#/media/File:WikiProject_Songs_7"_record_on_sheet_music.png){kind=small}
 | A fact from Perfect Celebrity appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 April 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
References
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Did you know nomination
- 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 Cielquiparle talk 18:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- ... that Lady Gaga considered changing Mayhem into a grunge record after completing "Perfect Celebrity"?
- Reviewed:
Leafy46 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
- Article has notability issues
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article was created within 7 days of nomination. Article has over 1,500 characters. Article is properly cited. Earwig returned an unlikely copyright violation of 11.5%. A QPQ is not needed at this time. My only concern at this time is that the article is tagged with notability issues by RachelTensions. Once they have been resolved, I think it's good to go. lullabying (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Thank you for the quick review! I've plead my case to RachelTensions over at my talk page about its notability, so I'll keep you posted as to when this gets resolved. Leafy46 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: I have added a few extra sources and consequently removed the notability template, reflected in this comment on the article's talk page. Hopefully this nomination should be good to go now?
- @Lullabying: Whoops, forgot to sign. Leafy46 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Good to go! lullabying (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Whoops, forgot to sign. Leafy46 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Page Curation note
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
The article's sources do not yet reflect significant coverage of the song outside of the context of coverage of the album as a whole, or reviews of the project. See WP:NSONG for the specific guideline.
"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. RachelTensions (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just an FYI to anyone coming by, I've decided to remove this tag for the reason I've put in this comment on my talk page. I've added in a few of the extra sources I've found just to play it safe, but I'd argue that there were already a good amount of sources speaking specifically about the song before, and that there are definitely enough now. Leafy46 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- That’s fine with me. When I reviewed the article originally there was only one source cited that was actually on the song in-specific and not coverage of the album as a whole. Looks like things have expanded now.
- RachelTensions (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)