Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daydream (Mariah Carey album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [1].

Daydream (Mariah Carey album) edit

Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA criteria. Thanks everyone for reviewing and supporting ;) CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the audio samples to the "Composition" section, where the songs are discussed in terms of recording and composition, so the samples do help there. As per those 2 photos, I mean aren't all photos just eye candy? I would understand the one on the swing, but the one for "One Sweet Day" I believe shows the whole concept if you watch the video. Would these 2 images really have you hold it against the nomination? Anyway, see what you think of at least 1. If you still refuse, then I will remove them.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, eye candy to a degree but hopefully aiding in the reader's understanding by illustrating a concept. In the case of non-free media, we need to be extremely careful to ensure we have strong rationales for inclusion. I've looked around at several other album FAs (such as Silent Alarm; you'll note the album cover and the audio clip are the only non-free media there), and it seems like one audio clip would be prudent, that best represents the album's musical style. As for the images, I don't think they aid in reader understanding at all and should be removed. Surely the reader can understand the concept of Boyz II Men standing with Mariah Carey without an image? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed both images and removed a sound clip. Now all we have is 2 audio clips for composition. Is that ok?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm really torn, because on hand those are two important songs that were hugely popular if my memory serves. On the other hand, you don't really discuss them enough musically to warrant both samples. Can you add any additional discussion of the musical elements present in those two songs to make for a stronger fair use case? As it stands, I still don't think the reader needs to hear them to understand anything you've said in the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is how I view it. We discuss the TomTom sample for Fantasy is depth, and then have the sample that shows how it was incorporated into the song. The for "One Sweet Day" we have discussion about its production, writing, lyrics, message and then have a sample. I mean they aren't completely unwarranted like before, when they were in the singles section. They are only 2, do you see why I think they need to be there? Thank you--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead is difficult to read, because it's all "Number one here, top five there, biggest selling single of all time in Japan for 32 weeks and 1 day by a non-Asian artist." The readers' eyes are likely to glaze over before they reach the end. And it doesn't tell us much about its contents. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand the issue. Every FA or GA I've seen works the same way as I put it. Either 3-4 paragraphs, 1st overall information, 2nd talking about who worked on the album and writer etc. 3rd is the albums commercial success and 4th is the success and info of the singles. Whats the issue? What more would you like to see?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe there's a standard for FAs about albums that I'm not aware of. I'm just saying as a reader that the lead is hard to read, because it's just a list of superlatives. The best this, the highest selling that. Would it not make sense to put the stats in a separate section, perhaps with the most important ones pulled out for the lead, but otherwise to tell us a bit more about the album? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, can you point me to a recently promoted FA about an album so I can compare? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so I dont remember off hand. I know your probably thinking I'm BSing you, but I mean it. Anyway, I could remove some misc sales info and charting, ad replace it with more info. However, I still plan to keep 4 paragraphs and 2 would be as indicated above.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you're BSing me, so don't worry. :) I don't want to advise you to do something that most album FAs don't do, so I'll take a look around and see what best practice is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some FA album leads to consider: Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), Supernature (Goldfrapp album), Rumours, Pinkerton (album), The Dark Side of the Moon. More here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slim. hanks for your suggestions :D I fixed up the lead considerably, so I think its better. Is it alright now? hanks :). Just so you understand my view on its current status. 1st paragraph talks about its background and inside info. paragraph 2 talks about its recording, writing and production, as well as some controversy. 3rd paragraph discusses the tour and the singles. 4th talks about the albums critical and commercial success. I hope that covers it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nathan, I'm commenting again because you left a note on my talk page. I'm sorry I can't support this, but it needs a fair bit of work. Examples of problematic prose: " ... the friends and family her fans had lost along life's journey." And "As Carey's career and work continued to mirror the way she saw fit ..."
I suggest withdrawing the nom, then: (a) creating a strong structure for the article (the one you have in place is not bad); (b) removing any unnecessary detail if readers might think it's too much fancruft (which I know is hard to judge in an article that'll be mostly read by her fans); (c) making sure the text reflects the sources, but doesn't copy what they say too closely; (d) removing unattributed quotations, such as "The chorus was sophisticated and natural, with each following line 'cascading onto one another,' something that would have proved difficult for a 'less skilled vocalist.'" But be careful either to rewrite or give the attribution; don't just remove the quotation marks. And (e) doing a last very thorough fix of the prose to make sure the text flows well, and that the grammar is good. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit. Here's a selection of errors from one random paragraph: Sasata (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Daydream proved to be one of the best-selling and most acclaimed album of 1995." album -> albums
  • "When the "Grammy Award" nominees were announced" why is Grammy Awards in quotes?
  • "Together, alongside Boyz II Men, she sang a live rendition" Together is redundant
  • "the television cameras continued to zoom up on Carey's face" zoom up -> zoom
  • "Carey hadn't won a single award." avoid contractions in professional prose
  • "Interestingly enough, while Carey was nominated again the following year," The encyclopedia shouldn't be telling us it's interesting
  • "she didn't perform at the awards" another contraction
Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend finding a good copyeditor to go through the prose line by line. It's difficult to see your own mistakes once you've worked on an article for so long. Some more examples I saw while skimming through.

  • 'while it's composition"
  • "allot of texture"
  • "However, she wasn't about to"
  • ""Open Arms" receieved a negative review"

Ping me when someone not involved with the article has gone through it with a fine tooth comb, and I'll reconsider the oppose. Sasata (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't really glanced through the full article but I can see that it says "It also topped the charts in New Zealand and peaked within the top five in Australia, Canada, France, Ireland and The Netherlands." When it said in the actual One Sweet Day article it says it topped the Canadian chart.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your right, its a mistake. It did top the charts in Canada, I just corrected it. Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been correcting very small spelling and grammar issues for you but I'll point out others an example is "Always Be My Baby performed moderately overseas. The song peaked within the top five in Canada, New Zealand and the UK, but charted outside the top-ten elsewhere" Canada is not overseas =D Maybe saying "Always Be My Baby performed moderately in other commercial markets." is better.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you got me again! All done :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Number of problems, needs significant rewriting—

  • The lead is far too long; album-article leads are normally a paragraph or two shorter than this. Cut down the detail on the individual singles, and concentrate on the album as a whole. You can also remove some info about the collaborators and charting/sales info (for eg: sales in Japan).
  • The order of info in the lead is also weird. Eg: why is her failure at the Grammys in the same paragraph as the one that discusses her music?
  • A Background generally sets up the scenario of what happened before the album's recording began. So do not summaries about the album's impact do not belong here ("The album saw Carey grow and find herself as an artist"). On the other hand, more needs to be included about the situation after her previous album. (Check out In Utero (album) for a good background section).
  • That second para is very critical of Mottola. You better explicitly quote opinions such as "Since the time of Carey's debut, Mottola had controlled nearly every aspect of her career..", instead of making it seem like fact.
  • Recording: Woah that's a huge quote, about just one song. Trim it down. In fact, the incorporation of so many big quotes from a single source might construe copy-vio (I think, not sure).
  • Also, the entire section focuses in too much detail on the recording of individual songs (which can go to the song articles) instead of the overall recording of the album.
  • Reception: do not mix up contemporary reviews from 1995 (NY Times) with retrospective reviews that came later (About.com). Cut down on the amount you quote these sites due to copyvio concerns. Try to find more reviews (Spin, Billboard, NME)
  • Why do Singles and Music videos have their own sections when the songs have their own articles?
  • Are those chart succession boxes necessary? Also, they are unreferenced.
  • Prose needs thorough copy-editing: "some of whom adding that it is her best record", "critics believed Carey would be one of the nights big winners", + you tend to overuse the word "album".
  • Avoid citing consecutive sentences with the same ref. Just one at the end would do. (for eg, just use ref #49 once at the end instead of the four times)—indopug (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of your mentions, but some I argue against. So, the lead is the correct length under Wikipedia rules. While you may not see it in other album pages its how its done. Look here for the rules of lead length. It says an article with over 30,000 characters should have 3-4 para. This article is around 72,000 characters, so its more than appropriate.
I will move the Grammy info and cut some lead out.
I will do as you ask for the background.
I will quote more on what I said about Mottola. PS none of the things are particularly negative.
For recording, I'll cut down some of the quotes etc. Songs are what make and comprise an album. It is essential to discuss their composition. I have never had a problem with that before.
I will cut down the quotes, but I see no issues with having them there together, they are both accepted.
Because they are still part of the album. I'm not going to remove everything except its background and sales.
I never had an issue with them, but I will remove them if you wish.
I was told to do that, so there is no issue of "unsourced material".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the time of Carey's debut, Mottola had controlled nearly every aspect of her career," is very very critical of Mottola, and would best be attributed as a quote. In fact, the whole article has quite a bit of POV that is passed off as fact; you need to attribute these to their sources, even if it is the biographer who says so ("the television cameras continued to zoom on Carey's face, who was finding it more difficult to retain her smile . . . The disappointment on her face was painfully obvious.").
  • Critical reception: it is vital to separate contemporary and retrospective reviews as it indicates how the work has been received over time. For eg: while initial reviews for the early Led Zeppelin were almost unanimously scathing, as time wore on, critics began to realise that the records were all, in fact, classics.
  • For the Recording, Singles and Music videos section: even if an album is comprised of its songs, on Wikipedia these songs can have their own articles. So there is no need to discuss them in detail here; just their importance with regard to the album as a whole. The music video section, in particular, should be excised completely, as nothing in it has anything to do with Daydream directly. All the info is about singles from the album.
  • I'm pretty sure there is no need to cite every consecutive sentence, if they are referenced by the same source.
  • The Recording and composition section is meant to discuss the music on the album, not heap praise on it. ("The song's writing and production were "superb,"", "Having Holland on the record proved to be wise, giving the song a genuine and unforced gospel feel.", "The song displayed subtle vocals from Carey, as well as an undeniable richness.")
Overall, I think there's too much that needs to be done within the scope and timeframe of FAC, and would suggest withdrawal.—indopug (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Daydream_(Mariah_Carey_album)/archive1&oldid=1138458551"