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)[reply]

This article is about a 1993 video album by

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)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

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: 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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply
      ]
• "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)[reply
      ]
      • 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"

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)[reply

]

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

Source review (pass)

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

]

Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Best of luck with the FAC.

Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• "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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Thanks so much! Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I separated them from the template. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  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)[reply
  ]