Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mariah Carey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mariah Carey

Self-nomination. This article languished until a cleanup operation initiated by user:FuriousFreddy last October, and myself and a few other editors have been working on it ever since. We've tried to incorporate comprehensive (but not excessively detailed) material on the significant aspects of Carey's life and career, and I now believe that it meets the featured article criteria. It has been the subject of two peer reviews, which can be found here and here. Special thanks to user:Rossrs for creating the sound samples. Extraordinary Machine 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, A very well written article. i checked all the pics and sound clips, they all have fair-use, and the sections are well written. Vulcanstar6 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I was wondering when someone was going to nominate it. Very strong and comprehensive article.--Fallout boy 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is just me being nit-picky, and once my question is answered, I'll more than likely support the nomination. Perhaps one of Carey's remixes that first presented her collaborations with hip hop artists should be included as a sound sample (such as "Fantasy" or "Always Be My Baby")? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to create sound samples, so you might want to ask user:Rossrs about that. Sorry. Extraordinary Machine 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It was only a comment, so don't worry. Therefore, I officially support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The original plan was to include "Fantasy" as the sample, but I don't have a copy of the Morales mix, nor could I obtain one, so I added "My All" as a compromise. "Fantasy" would be a better choice .... maybe one day. Also, thanks Extraordinary Machine for mentioning the samples in your nomination. Very generous of you, and certainly appreciated! Rossrs 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Don't worry about it, the article is still wonderful. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuck yeah!!! (pardon my French) I was wondering when you (EM) were gonna nominate this article. It has been through so much, but thanks to EM's persistence, it now meets all the FA criteria (in fact, its even better than most featured articles, I can guarantee that). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia may not be censored, but that doesn't mean we can't be professional. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, just going through one of my rebellious phases. But, still, what's a little spicy language, eh?Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I've looked over this article, and found it written with adequet writting style (IMO), all images have propper fair use rationals or are PD. It is also sufficiently referenced, and covers the topic quite broadly. Featured quality. Fieari 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is truly excellent. High-quality references, top-notch formatting (one of only a few FACs that I don't have to touch!), and comprehensive, discussing her music, her musical career, and her biography. Would-be authors of articles on music icons, take note. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a really wonderful article -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Noticed some stuff...
  1. She began singing at around the age of three, performed for the first time in public during elementary school, and was writing her own songs by junior high. Wrong tense of perform (tenses have to be consistent)
  2. However, Carey has never done a world tour although there are many who keep reporting that she has. Reports of this are untrue. She has only done two miniature tours; one when she debuted, and the other in the "Charmbracelet" era. Carey's stats and career are often inflated to make her look better when it is unnecessary. Carey would not have done a world tour because she is uncomfortable performing in front of large groups and her popularity is mostly in the U.S. not worldwide. Where does this part come in? There is no transition bwtn this section and the section before it, and seems out of place in tone with the article. The last two sentences esp. seem strange and looks to be vandalism. Also, if you're including it, explain the "Charmbracelet Era", or link it to another article.
  3. and CNN derisively referring to her casting as a talentless diva as "letter-perfect". Replace and with with...makes more sense.
  4. WiseGirls producer Anthony Esposito cast Carey in The Sweet Science, a film about an unknown female boxer who is recruited by a boxing manager. It never entered production, and WiseGirls went straight to cable in the U.S. This section is a little odd...it transitions to the film Sweet Science, but then there is mention of WisGirls at the end of the sentence. Maybe put the bit about the WiseGirls before the transition.
  5. and another featuring rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard which has been credited Who, not which
  6. jewellery Jewelry is spelled wrong.
  7. later that year it was announced that she had The that btwn announced and she should be cut out.
  8. She has also expressed a desire to release a perfume,and later that year it was announced that she had signed a licensing deal with the cosmetics company Elizabeth Arden to release a fragrance in 2007. This sentence doesn't read well and repeats itself.

Aside from these, it's a good article. --Osbus 01:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    • You are dead wrong on counts 1, 5, 6, and 7. Don't know about the rest. Don't have time at the moment. With number 1, all of the tenses are in past. That is all that matters. It's perfectly okay to combin simple past with past continuous. With number 5, the relative clause is referring to the "remix" not the rapper "Dirty ole Bastard". Therefore, "which" is correct and "who" is incorrect. With number 6, "jewellery" is the British spelling variation on the American spelling "Jewelry". Lastly, number 7: The extra "that" is okay. It's the writer's choice. Both with or without "that" is correct. --Jayzel 07:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Since she's American, this article should only use American spellings. (Osbus was incorrect to refer to it as a mispelling, but in this context, it should be switched regardless) I won't comment on the other points. Tuf-Kat 16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Jayzel is right about point 5: the remix itself was credited with initiating the trend, not just Ol' Dirty Bastard himself. I've tried to remedy the other points - the extract from #2 was unsourced POV which was inserted recently and shouldn't have been there. Extraordinary Machine 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I seem "dead wrong" to you, but all the sentences I pointed out aren't necessarily "incorrect", but would sound better if differently written. For example, the sentence with the extra that would sound better without it, b/c there is already another necessary that preceding it. I believe an FA should not only be informative, well-sourced, and all that crap but also well written. --Osbus 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I've edited the sentence regarding the "Fantasy" remixes, I think it is clearer now. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I love finding something to object to in these pop culture articles but this is truly excellent, ESPECIALLY the formatting. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The one comment I might make is that the lead doesn't really make reference to her "return to prominence." Other than that, this article looks fantastic! The Disco King 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I'm just stupid, I expected it to be chronological, so when I saw that the last paragraph ended in 2000, I just assumed. But one should never assume. When you assume, you make an ass out of Uma Thurman. Still Support! The Disco King 05:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks amazing and is extremely well written. Underneath-it-All 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (why the numbered votes?) The David Morales link could be removed from see also, as it should be linked elsewhere. "Biography and music career" could be just shortened to "Biography", I think. I also don't like having section headings with nothing at all under them; I suggest putting a paragraph or two summary under "Artistry". Tuf-Kat 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Morales "See also" link has been removed, and the section header shortened. I wasn't sure how to summarise the "Artistry" section so I just removed the first section header ("Influence"), which I think looks okay. Extraordinary Machine 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty good then, support Tuf-Kat 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great article. --Terence Ong 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent. --Wilanthule 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. Comprehensive and, on the whole, well written. However, quite a few things need fixing. Here are some random examples of little problems I picked up.
"she is the most successful artist of the 1990s"—"was"
"is well-known for her wide vocal range and melismatic singing, despite criticisms of her voice and lyrics."—the first clause refers to specific technical matters, yet the second clause is vague. If her wide vocal range is admired, what exactly has been criticised. This is an important point; readers will want to know.
"and after a period of only minimal success"—it's awkward; what about "and after a disappointing period"
"Her moderate renown"—similar issue to the previous point; the adjective and the noun pull in opposite directions
"Carey co-wrote ... and would continue to co-write"—let's keep it in the indicative mood, rather than mixing it with the conditional ("continued to co-write" is simpler to read, and crisper).

Please find someone who's a little distant from the text to sift through it and weed out problems such as these.

Sources—query in relation to Criterion 2c: I wish that some of it didn't look so obviously like a stitching together of material from the sources. Although there are inline references, there should be quote marks around text that is lifted directly from those sources. Are they largely paraphrased or quoted??? If this is going to be an issue, I'll have to change to object, but I could be wrong here. (BTW, please don't think that other sources don't themselves need editing.)

So much is good about this article; it's worth the effort to fix it. Tony 03:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix all of the grammar problems that you listed. I did ask somebody to give the article a copyedit during the most recent peer review, but it's changed quite a bit since then. In response to your sources query, I'm not sure if you are asking whether or not the sources were copied from, but I made sure to put it into my own words as much as possible to avoid plagiarism, and I also inserted quotation marks around text lifted directly from the sources. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks very good, and nothing jumps out at me as problematic. Everyking 10:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support even the fair use images have been cut down as far as I could hope for. Good article. -Mask 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the editors of this article deserve a huge congratulations for the amazing turnaround that has been achieved here. Well written, illustrated, sourced, and superbly structured. Rates highly against all criteria. In line with the excellent advice given by Tony, we should continue to scrutinise the text to iron out the minor glitches that he has detected. As he said, it is well worth the effort to make this quality article even better. Rossrs 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Object - I have to say I very much dislike the expansion of the info box. Also known as "Mimi" is fancrufty, and trivial. I particularly do not like that "related artists" Whitney Houston and Celine Dion are mentioned in the info box. They are mentioned several times in the article, but the info box as a summary assumes a more authoritative note and to put them there it becomes POV. In the article the comparisons are related to specific instances and critical comments and are attributed to outside commentators. As such they are not editorial POV. In the infobox they are taken outside of the context of an external commentator and to me it looks we're saying "Wikipedia has decided that these are related artists, and are the only ones worth mentioning" and it clearly crosses the line into editorial POV. I think it is very wrong and to allow it to remain would be setting a very, very bad and dangerous precedent. It is like the things you see in fan magazines ("if you like this artist, you'll probably also like this one" or "if you bought this CD you really should also buy this one" ). It's an endorsement, and a recommendation. IMDB and particularly Amazon do it (with astonishing inaccuracy, but bless them for trying, they are, after all, selling a product), but we should never do it. Sorry to say, this is sufficient for me to change my vote. I realize this was not added by the nominator or any of the people who have built this article, but please get rid of it. Rossrs 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Would be great to see some more pics (you can't love Mariah without looking at her...WOW!) but that doesn't take away from the quality of this article. Harro5 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Who's the guy shaking Mariah's hand in Image:Mariah Carey in April 1999.jpg? My knowledge of American congressional politics isn't great, but he looks familiar and it should be mentioned in the caption and definitely in the image description. Also, that image doesn't seem to be properly attributed to a photographer. The info says it came from a fan website, but fan websites are notorious for ripping off images so permission from the fansite isn't adequate. --NormanEinstein 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't say with 100% certainty, but it looks a lot like Sen. Trent Lott. -- Daniel,levine 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (actually Andrew Levine)
    • I also have a concern on the copyright of some pics from "mariahdaily.com". I can see Image:Mariah Carey in April 1999.jpg maybe being ok (if it's a PD from a staffer of Lott). But, Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg seems to good to be true, since it's a TV preformance. Now, its possible that somebody from mariahdaily.com snapped the photo, but that seems a little unlikely. Mariahdaily.com invites people to send in photos, and has huge numbers. I can't see all those people giving up copyright to good quality photos. TV producers definately wouldn't give up a photo they owned. I find "Copyright (c) 1999 Mariah Daily." combined with "Photographer: Unknown" to be a little fishy. If you don't know who the photographer is, you probably don't know the copyright holder. --Rob 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose till copyright issue is cleared up for the mariahdaily.com photos. First, you likely can't know the copyright holder if the photographer is unknown. Second, GFDL requires attribution. If the original photographer really did license the image under GFDL, then they must be attributed. Anonymous photographeres and GFDL don't mix. This is my sole objection, as the article looks good. --Rob 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed (from this article as well as others) all of the images that originated from MariahDaily, and I've sent them another email asking if they could clarify the copyright status of them. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, nicely written. --Tone 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice to see such a full-fledged clean-up effort! Staxringold 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is quite good now. Good writing and references. Image copyright issues are obviously gone. Personally, I would like the cropped version of the lead photo, to cut-out the background, but that's no big deal. --Rob 00:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is overall well-done, and certainly among the best of the pop artist and song pieces that have come through here, some successfully, in recent months. IMO, this is thanks in good part to the informative "Artistry" section, which adds a necessary dimension to the article, focussing on the subject's skills and craft, that is sorely lacking in, for example, recent FA promotion Celine Dion. Overall, the article does summarize rather than drone on with scads of press minutiae, and moves along smoothly. My main area of concern is the liberal use of critics' quotes, which is kept under relative control, yet still adds an undesirable element of the hyperbole common to pop criticism. Quotes like "a purveyor of saccharine bilge like 'Hero', whose message seems wholesome enough: that if you vacate your mind of all intelligent thought, flutter your eyelashes and wish hard, sweet babies and honey will follow" add reading interest and...pep, as they were originally designed to do by their authors, but, appearing too often, they also unduly color the account, and move conclusions from research-based, to the particular words of this or that scribe. Each such quote should have a distinct purpose, and not be used to advance the general narrative from, in this case, album to album. All things considered, however, had I the time to, uh, evaluate more in depth, I probably would not object, just write a longer comment. Putting aside encyclopedic concerns, as an uncritical reader, I was informed and satisfied. If this article could somehow influence the FAC guidelines more directly, that would be a fine thing! --Tsavage 13:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't take this the wrong way, but just a quick question: Have you ever supporrted a FAC? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I don't think comments like this are very productive. Extraordinary Machine 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To Tsavage: thanks. I think saying "The main criticism of [that album] was [that]" and nothing more doesn't really stand up on its own unless the statement is corroborated by quotes from actual people; I feel that readers are less likely to question the accuracy of these statements if direct quotes (or instances of paraphrasing) are included. I did try to research as much as I could about the general critical appraisals of each of Carey's albums, and then pick a quote or two that best exemplified what most reviews had said. Extraordinary Machine 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's an excess of quotes. Trying to summarize opinions generally is quite risky, and leads to bias or weasel words to avoid bias. I would actually like to see even more quotes. For instance a suggestion she has "prima donna" behaviour and acts as a "diva" was outside quotes, and wasn't attributed to a specific source in the body of the article, and a reader has to go to the footnotes to see where it was written. The casual reader (who doesn't read footnotes at the bottom) doesn't see exactly who said this (or even if that was the term used). It used the classic "alleged" weasel word. Stuff that's pure opinion usually belongs in quotations. --Rob 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Yup dats ttly right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.191.45 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)