Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mariah Carey/archive3

Mariah Carey

Featured article candidates/Mariah Carey

Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox and SNUGGUMS, do either of you have any interest in trying to address the sourcing issues? If no one wants to take this on, it'll probably be delisted shortly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @ScarletViolet: 750 h+ 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: From what I can see, per criterion 2c of WP:FACR, the citations should be consistently formatted. The citations are not formatted consistently; some of the publishers are linked, while others are not. Also, there are many duplicate links in the article (as I've checked), which is also required by the criterion 2. Featured articles follow all of the Manual of Style, whereas Good articles only follow five of the MOS guidelines (lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation). For now, I am planning to rewrite the article and fix the issues. I advise you take Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift as two example for articles that follow proper FA guidelines. When you look at the article, it follows all of the standards for featured articles. Hopefully, the Carey article will be re-promoted to FA in a couple years from now when it meets all of the FA standards. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 12:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll at least start work on citations within the next 24 hours, though with regards to linking terms, I thought it was common practice to only link the first one to use a term and that subsequent uses of that publication didn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK. From a glance at this version of the page, it would for example mean The New York Times is just linked in ref#5 and Toronto Star in ref#27. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE it looks like all the subpar sources have been removed, and I've linked some more terms. Before I make additional changes with linking (or lack thereof) for publications used more than once (such as multiple MTV News or Entertainment Weekly articles), does anybody know for certain whether it's expected to be a first-mention-only or all-instances ordeal? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: It depends on what you choose. Would suggest that improvements should made in due time, otherwise its status will be gone. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry; typically an FAR stays open as long as there are people willing to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The sections too are very long, unlike the Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift articles, which are very concise and short. Consider splitting it into subsections in a similar fashion to The Beatles and BTS. Improving while its FA status is active not enough. Would suggest removing the status first, then once the article meets the FA criteria, then the article can be ready for re-promotion. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 01:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be so hasty; I've cleaned out lots of duplicate links from the article body and Heartfox has helped me in improving citations. How much splitting would be adequate? In the meantime, I also have touched up some of the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I boldly went ahead with some splits and here is what the article looks like afterwards. Hopefully it's a step in the right direction. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: You're right. Let's think positive, not negative, shall we? I'm also planning to write major changes in the sandbox first before revamping it in the article itself. This time, I would also split Carey's cultural status to its own article: like Cultural impact of Mariah Carey. Title follows other articles like Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Taylor Swift, Cultural impact of BTS, etc. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea at all. Before you implement the sandbox changes, please do show what they look like. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks savable to me, and there does not seem to have been any substantial change in Carey's career that would require it to go through a complete rewriting. Can you guys catch me up on what specifically still needs doing here, ScarletViolet and SNUGGUMS?--N Ø 04:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for perhaps expanding on legacy (debatable how much should be added), I can't think of much else to do with the page now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will shortly do research for any stuff that needs adding there; in the meantime, I feel comfortable putting a keep here.--N Ø 10:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and I'll also say keep as FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan and SNUGGUMS: Sorry about not being able to improve the article. I was busy working on other articles, but would agree with your decisions to keep. ScarletViolet t c 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Have your sourcing concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: ? 750 h+ 07:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broadway World should be removed based on its WP:RSP entry. I don't know that " "AFTER TONIGHT". Song of the Week. August 15, 2004. Archived from the original on April 29, 2023. Retrieved April 29, 2023." is a high-quality RS. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Look_to_the_Stars does not reflect well on "Look to the Stars" being a high-quality RS. Nobody seems to have addressed why the recent academic work noted by Heartfox is not being used. Given that the article is quite long and a very brief glance at a source deeper led to me removing material about Mariah Carey-themed products sourced only to product pages/announcements themselves, I think this article should be reviewed by someone who isn't a Mariah Carey fan before this is closed. I have neither the time nor the interest to be the person to do a line-by-line review of this thing. Hog Farm _Talk 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three sources you mentioned have been taken out. As for academic work, I personally am not sure which text should be attributed to those that isn't already, but am open to hearing others' thoughts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting the whole book at Resource Exchange isn't feasible so page numbers or at least which topics from the new academic work need to be added is required information. Without that, the mere existence of the new work is non-actionable and thus not alone grounds for delisting. No problems with getting some more reviews on this, though.--N Ø 20:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The recent academic works are now cited within the article. The Chan book does get overly into detail into individual songs but that is best suited for the Cultural Impact, Public Image, or individual song and album articles. I have pulled his opinions for the relevant sections of this article where his personal opinions are relevant.--N Ø 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit doubtful if indefinitely keeping this open is going to attract the review of a non-Carey fan. Hog Farm, by any chance do you have the time and interest to review it now? As it will probably receive increased attention during Christmas, it would be neat if the article's status was settled by then.--N Ø 23:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is very hectic for me. I would be willing to read through this but it would have to be the week after Thanksgiving at the earliest. Hog Farm _Talk 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some thoughts here:

The "Songbird Supreme" moniker is only found in the lead and isn't actually sourced anywhere
"The music video for the album's lead single, "Honey", her first since separating from Mottola, introduced a more overtly sexual image." - this comes across oddly, as her marriage to Mottola hasn't been mentioned at all in the body of the article up to this point
"(Ashanti had topped the chart in 2002 while being a featured singer on the number two single)." - is there a link for Ashanti?
"Carey is second only to The Beatles, who have twenty number-one singles. " - is this still the case?
"Though it debuted at number five on the Billboard 200, it became her lowest-selling album to date and ultimately was her final release with Epic Records; she quietly left the label sometime in 2019" - I can't find this in the cited source
"On November 6, 2024, Carey will embark on the "Mariah Carey's Christmas Time" tour, set to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Merry Christmas" - the tense is a bit of an issue now, but just changing to the past tense isn't great because this source is from several months before the tour started
" Since 2019, she has recorded a video every year to declare "it's time".[373]" - For one thing, this source doesn't support '23 and '24, and also, this seems rather trivial
"referred to by Carey as "Sing Sing"[425] (alluding to her feeling imprisoned there" - link Sing Sing? I'm not sure how many non-Americans will get the reference

This is in pretty good shape except for the above, although I will note that this is not my preferred style of music at all, which would be represented by things such as Turnpike Troubadours' "The Bird Hunters" and Chris Knight's "Framed". Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits with a view to solving these issues. Carey is still second to the Beatles for the Billboard record, I believe, but she has added another number-one since, with "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (which is going number one again this week...) I appreciate you taking out time to review such a big article.--N Ø 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep FA status for this article. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]