Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here Is Mariah Carey/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [1].

---

Here Is Mariah Carey

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1993 video album by Mariah Carey filmed primarily at Proctor's Theater in Schenectady, New York. It is probably one of her most famous performances, having been watched by almost 20 million people on television during its original NBC broadcast and receiving a Platinum certification from RIAA.

This article was pretty much a stub before I started editing it this summer and now I consider it essentially complete and worthy of FA status :) I decided to skip GA and go straight to FA to see how it goes, as I will be extremely busy come mid-September as I head into my second year of undergrad and work part-time simultaneously :P Thanks in advance for your feedback and I look forward to making the article as effective as possible. Heartfox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

This part, third video album by Mariah Carey. It presents the American singer performing live, reads rather awkwardly to me. I would instead use by American singer Mariah Carey and presents Carey performing as I think that would be better. Done. This part, In designing elements of the stage for the performance, seems unnecessarily wordy to me. Would it be possible to cut it down to something like the following, In designing the stage for the performance? Done. For this sentence, Columbia Music Video released it on VHS five days later to positive reviews from critics who complimented Carey's voice but felt the non-concert scenes were unnecessary., I think it would be beneficial to put the negative reviews into a separate sentence. For some reason, I read this sentence as saying the same critics who praised Carey's voice also disliked the non-concert scenes, which makes the overall reviews seem more mixed than positive. I think a clearer separation would help. I've attempted to split it. I have a question for this part, The video spent two years on the United States music video chart. Is there a link for this chart? Also, I am guessing you are referencing a Billboard chart so I would say that as the current wording (i.e. the United States music video chart) reads awkwardly to me. I have a similar question for this part, and six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom. Is there a link for this chart? Also, I am guessing this is referencing the Official Charts Company and I would be clear with that too. There are no links. I've reworded the sentence, but I think including the chart publisher kinda makes it more wordy. Thank you. I think it is important to clarify the publishers. I do not think it is too wordy now, but you can always look through it again in the future (and other reviewers may have something to say about it). Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Apologies in advance as this is likely a stupid question. From my understanding, this is a video album so why is it referenced as a music video here, it was one of the best-selling music videos of 1994 and 1995? In this case, "music video" means not-a-film video, but I've changed it to "best-selling video albums" to hopefully make it clearer. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) For this part, released it as an EP, I would spell out the acronym (i.e. extended play) as some readers may not be familiar with this kind of music jargon. Done. I have two comments about this sentence: Despite not having toured, the show established Carey as a capable live performer and quashed notions by critics that her voice was manufactured in a studio. First, I do not think it is entirely grammatically correct. The beginning phrase (i.e. "Despite not having toured") is linked to the beginning of the next part (i.e. "the show") and not Carey. Also, I think this part seems a little out of order and can be expanded on further. From my understanding (and I can be wrong), this idea of Carey being a studio artist is why lead to her doing the MTV Unplugged concert and this. It might be better to start this paragraph with this information and how she did not tour either of her first two albums. Further context would provide a clearer picture here. I reworded and reorganized the paragraph. I believe it works better now. Thank you for the revisions here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) This is a super nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance, but for this part, for the Christmas shopping season, I would say for the 1993 Christmas shopping season just to be clear about the year. Done. This part, In a chapter explaining her experiences during the video's production in her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey, seems unnecessarily wordy to me. I think you can get away with just saying, In a chapter from her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey. Done. I love Mariah Carey's music so I knew I had to review this. My above comments are about the lead and the "Background" section. Apologies for the amount of comments. They are mostly minor notes, except for the part where I believe you can expand and re-organize the information about proving herself as a live singer. I will put up more comments once everything has been addressed as I do not want to overwhelm you. I hope this is helpful and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks for your comments so far; they have been helpful definitely improved the article! Heartfox (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC) I am glad that I can help. I just have one quick comment, which I will leave below, but I will post more comments tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) This sentence, After being well-received by her fans and critics alike, Carey's record label—Columbia—released it as an extended play, MTV Unplugged., reads like the record label is being well-received by fans and critics. This would need to be revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC) I've replaced "being" with "the concert was". Hopefully that works! Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Looks good to me. Thank you for making the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC) I would move the images in the "Production" section to the top of the section to avoid having them cut rather awkwardly across the section titles. Moved. For this part, by Carey's fan club, local radio stations, and insiders, could you clarify what you mean by "insiders"? Reworded to "those with connections to the production". For this part, Carey performed the set list on each night, I would say "performed the same set list" to be more specific. Reworded. For this part, who worked with Carey on MTV Unplugged and music videos, I would clarify the number of music videos they had collaborated on at this time. I believe it is four (i.e. the ones for "Vision Of Love", "Someday", "I'll Be There", "Hero"), but double-check this. It would provide some additional context to just how often they worked together. I expanded the sentence. I have a question about this part, The first act features monolithic. Does this video explicitly refer to the performances as having "acts"? The word choice just seems out of place here, but I could be over-thinking it. The video doesn't as it switches between performances with background 1 vs. background 2 almost every song, but the source indicates that there were two acts during the production. The source uses the word "act". Thank you for the explanation. Since the source uses this phrasing, it is okay to keep in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I have only seen the beginning of this (on YouTube I must admit) and before her first performance, she has a short talking segment. Is that notable enough to mention here? I will watch it in full eventually lol. I've added more details to the section. For this part, She rides a horse in the countryside and explains her love of nature., I would clarify that this was part of the non-concert scenes. I think it would be beneficial to clearly define what is part of the performance at the theatre and what is separate from that. I know this may sound silly as it is likely obvious, but I think it would be helpful and it could be used to add some transitions into the summary to make it flow a little better too. I've added more details to the section. Police Athletic League should unlinked the "Summary" section as it is already linked in the "Production" section. In the same section, remove the "I'll Be There" link as it is used in a previous section as well. Unlinked both. I would think of a way to revise this part, she and Walter Afanasieff explain their writing process, and she and David Cole and Robert Clivillés explain theirs, to avoid the repetitions. Reworded. In the "Broadcast and release" section, unlink NBC as it is linked in a previous section. I would double check the article to see if there are other duplicate links. I will try to point them out here, but I'd check again in case I miss any. Unlinked. I wrote the sections in different order so that may be why I forgot to check them :P I have definitely done that before lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC) For this part, viewed Carey's rendition of "Without You" as the musical highlight, I am not sure "musical" is needed. It just made me question if they had highlights from other categories. Their indication of "Without You" as the best performance/song of the concert was in the context of them not liking the other songs, not necessarily the other scenes so I think "musical highlight" is correctly specific. We don't know if it was their favorite part of the whole video. Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC) It seems like the reviews in the "Critical response" section are all from the time this was released (but please correct me if I am wrong as I have not done a deep dive on the sources as this point). Have there been any retrospective reviews or articles about this? I would be rather surprised if this was the case as this seemingly occupies an important point in Carey's career. That being said, I am sure the rather generic title does not help with locating sources. I couldn't locate any sources. It is kind of odd that there hasn't been but it is a Mariah Carey video album, and there are generally a lot less sources than one for Madonna, for example. Hopefully excerpts from Carey's memoir suffices as contemporary information/stuff/relevance on the topic. Thank you for the response. I could not find any more contemporary sources either. This probably got lost in the shuffle of the albums in terms of retrospective articles. I also just do not see a lot of retrospective comments on video albums in general, as you have already said above. The excerpts from Carey's memoir are very good and I am glad that you included them here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have decided to finish reading the article today as I was already invested in it. I hope that my above comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will look through the citations. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments; I hope I have addressed them adequately. If there are any remaining issues please to not hesitate to comment :) Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. Everything looks good to me. I will read through the article one more time tomorrow just to make sure I do not miss anything. Plus, it is midnight at the time of me typing and posting this message so I want to come back to this with a much clearer mind. Apologies for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for your patience. I will wait to support the FAC until SNUGGUMS's points are addressed below. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since SNUGGUMS's points have been addressed, I support this FAC for promotion. Great work. I had a lot of fun reading this article and I am always happy to see this kind of topic in the FAC space. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS - Support

Resolved

Bold of you to go for FA without getting it to GA level first! Anyway, let's delve into this. File:HereIsMariahCarey.jpg, File:Boris Aronson The Firstborn Pyramid 1958.png, and File:Here Is Mariah Carey set piece.png all have appropriate FURs. Good to hear. "of which the video was commissioned to" reads awkwardly, maybe "intended to" or "meant to" would work better? Reworded to "which Columbia Records commissioned the video to promote". I'm guessing "quash notions" was supposed to be "squash notions", but that doesn't sound very formal. You'd be better off with something like "debunk", "disprove", or even "refute". Changed to "disprove". Unlink "fan club", "act", "park bench", and "porch" per WP:OVERLINK when those already are commonly recognized terms Unlinked all except "act". All but two sentences from the second paragraph of "Production" start with "the", which feels repetitive. Reworded so now only two start with "the". Whether this video's airdate was Thanksgiving or not seems rather minor compared to it happening on November 25, 1993. Unless it was specifically chosen to air on that date because it was a holiday, I'd remove the Thanksgiving bit. Same goes for debuting right after a Home Alone broadcast. Removed. It seems odd to only italicize "Daily News" from New York Daily News. The article New York Daily News doesn't italicize "New York". Contrary to what placing "Critical response" and "Commercial performance" under a collective header implies, whether critics like something is a separate matter entirely from how many copies it sells. You therefore should scrap the "Reception" heading and let these stand on their own. Separated them. When first mentioning Chris Nickson, you forgot to include his first name. Don't simply assume all readers will automatically know who that is just by reading a surname. He was previously named but I forgot to add his first name to the sentence which now introduces him. Thanks for pointing this out. This isn't by any chance written by the same Adam Sandler who went onto star in many movies after serving as a Saturday Night Live cast member, is it? Hm... Not sure it's appropriate to include YouTube links to performances of each track within "External links" Removed.

Looks pretty comprehensive and well-cited overall. Image review passes as well. My main concern is the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your time reviewing the article! I hope I have addressed your comments. Heartfox (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I can support following your improvements (I'm taking your response to Sandler as a "no" and that it shouldn't be linked unless you tell me otherwise)! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ippantekina

Never heard of this album, and since I only know Mrs. Carey by name as well as the all-time Christmas hit, I hope my review would be as objective as possible.

• "Carey performs ten songs at the theater" → should this be in the past tense?
  • Because the video exists in the present, I believe it is supposed to be written in the present tense. The sentence is referring to her performing in the video, not the filming at the theatre. The video exists in the present, the filming does not, if that makes sense. "She performs ten songs at the theater [during the video]" makes more sense than "she performed ten songs at the theater [during the video]".
    • Thank you for your explanation. Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Carey is accompanied at various times by a band" same concern
  • During the video, it isn't that she was accompanied at various times by a band—she is accompanied at various times by a band. (if that makes sense) Per MOS:TENSE, articles should generally be written in present tense.
    • I think you could reword it so that it is clear that we are talking about the video and not the concert(s). Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Reworded/reorganized.
• "On video album charts published by Billboard and the Official Charts Company, respectively, Here Is Mariah Carey peaked at number four in the United States and spent six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom" I think this can be reworded to be less clunky; i.e. "on the U.S. Billboard chart and the U.K. Official Charts Company chart"
  • Attempted to split the sentences.
• "Carey dedicates a chapter in her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey" same concern with tense
  • Changed to "dedicated"
• "well-received" I'm not sure but I think the hyphen is not necessary ("well received")
  • Removed.
• "number one song" should be "number-one song"
  • Changed.
• "Carey considers the video's production" same concern with tense
  • "Changed to "considered"

More to follow.. Ippantekina (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ippantekina; it is great to get an outsider POV. I'm not the best recognizing when hyphens are required or not, so thanks for pointing those instances out and improving the article! I agree with everything except the first two comments, which I explained my reasoning for above. I look forward to the rest of your review and I plan on reviewing "I Knew Your Were Trouble" soon. Heartfox (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Outside of the United States" pretty nitpick-y but I think it is simply "Outside the United States"
  • Changed.

The rest of the article is well written! I am happy to support this FAC based on prose. Brilliant work with the article, and looking forward to your comments at my FAC :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the additional comments. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

Addressed comments

I have done a spot check and the citations support the information present in the article. The citations are all from reliable, high-quality sources so I do not see any issue with this. For citation 23, I would put Vevo as via= rather than publisher= since Vevo is the platform and not the publisher. I would then add in who published this video on the platform. Because it's citing the credits of the video which are on the website, not the actual video, I believe Vevo is correct as the publisher. (sorry if i messed this up on tsotm) Thank makes sense to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC) I would modify citation 43 to avoid having "Without You" in italics since it is a song title and should be presented in quotation marks instead. Converted these to manual citations as the template automatically italicizes. For some citations (like citations 19 and 20), you include the locations (i.e. the cities), but for other citations, you do not include the locations. I would also encourage you to be consistent with one way or the other. Like with the above comment, I do not think the locations are entirely necessary. I just decided to remove them. If possible, I would revise the book citations shown in the "Citations" subsection (i.e. like Carey & Davis 2020, p. 140) so they link down to the full book citations in the "Sources" subsection. Revised. Does Mariah Carey Revisited have an ISBN number? I am not familiar with Kindle. I don't think Kindles have ISBNs, and providing one for a paper copy might be inaccurate due to page number changes. I thought so, but I wanted to check. I have a few digital books, but I mostly stick to physical copies. I agree that using the ISBN number for the paper copy would be inaccurate for those reasons. It should be good as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC) I have a question about citation 36. Since it is a book, shouldn't be structured like the other books sources? Revised. This is more of a note, but I did laugh at seeing a critic named Adam Sandler lol.

I hope this source review is helpful. The information is supported by the citations (at least from the spot check I have done) and the references used are reliable and high-quality. My comments are focused on some structure issues. Let me know if you have any questions or would like anything clarified. I am not super experienced with this type of review, but I wanted to help out with this nomination and help the editors who already do a lot of source reviews in the FAC space. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your time doing the source review! I hope I have addressed your comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

This is as a non-expert prose review.

• "Here Is Mariah Carey peaked at number four on the United States video album chart published by Billboard. On the corresponding Official Charts Company chart, it spent six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom. In the former country, it was one of the best-selling video albums of 1994 and 1995, earning a Platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America." I would flip the second and third paragraph that I have quoted here, so that the US information is altogether in the lede.
  • Reworded.
• "by Boris Aronson's in" Boris Aronson's what? His stage design?
  • Clarified.
• "and the second features various fabrics and drapery." Can this be more specific? What was used? What did it look like? Did the set constantly change or did it remain the same?
  • The article only describes it as "a study of fabrics and draping". I don't really know how to elaborate without original research.
    • Then I think it should be left as-is. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• "agreed Carey proved she" -> agreed that Carey proved she
  • Done.
• In the references, sometimes the 10-digit ISBN is used, and sometimes the 12-digit. This should be consistent.
  • I'm just giving what the books give. Template:Cite book says "Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book".
    • This is fine. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Should the infobox also have a "Originally broadcast" parameter?
  • Template:Infobox album doesn't allow for that.
• The infobox only mentions Walter Afanasieff as the producer. He is not specifically mentioned as the producer in the Credits (he's the music producer), and there are also several other people listed as various types of producers. Does more information need to be added to the infobox, or perhaps someone else should be listed as producer?
  • The wikilink is to music producer, so I listed Afanasieff. To avoid confusion, I've just removed mention of "producer" in the infobox.
• The lede says, "and nearly 20 million watched it on television network NBC" while the body says, "Here Is Mariah Carey received 19 million viewers" These numbers should match
  • Adjusted accordingly.
• "Carey dedicated a chapter in her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey to her experiences during the video's production." This is not talked about in the body; although a quote from the book is used, I would expect much more information in the article about this if this sentence is to be included in the lede.
  • Agreed; removed.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you are ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your time reading and reviewing the article, Z1720. Sorry for the delay I've just been busy with uni. Heartfox (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Real life is more important than Wikipedia. Don't worry about the delay. My comments have been addressed and I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much! Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Hi Heartfox, I hope you're well. Here's my image review.

• The three images are all non-free and have adequate FURs and captions, but... three non-free images seems excessive to me. I don't think it's written in stone anywhere that x number of non-free images is too many, but there is a strong understood recommendation to use as few free images as possible. If it were me doing the article, I would only use the DVD cover in the infobox, and then find some other aspect of the article (not the set) to illustrate with a free image or two. (Just for reference, I can tell you that besides infobox images I basically never ever use non-free images in articles, and I don't believe I am the exception among the FAC community at least.) How about one of these: File:Boris_Aronson-NYC-1920.jpg or File:ProctorsSchenectady.jpg?
  • @Moisejp: Thanks for your comments. If the FUR's are adequate then that's good enough for me. I don't really share the same free content ethos as Wikipedia or other editors might.
• I believe the non-infobox images should be configured as "thumb" per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. Moisejp (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I separated them from the template. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.