Talk:Underneath the Stars (song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Lead info

1. "by American recording artist Mariah Carey." → "by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey". Other Mariah GA articles of yours identify her as a singer-songwriter, not just an 'artist'.
2. "as the final single from the album" → "as the sixth and final single from the album". You include 'sixth and final' in the Background section, which reads better and makes more sense, otherwise it could be interpreted by a reader perhaps as the third and final single if there are not acquainted with the album itself.
3. "and in Australia as a b-side to "Forever"." → "and as a b-side to "Forever" in Australia". Flows better.
4. ""Underneath the Stars" received a limited number of pressings in the United States, failing to chart on Billboard Hot 100." → ""Underneath the Stars" received a limited number of pressings in the United States, and failed to chart on the US Billboard Hot 100." Tense issue. Also for some readers, they might not know what country "Billboard Hot 100" is, so add "US" before Billboard.
5. "best songs on Daydream by music reviewers, many of which considered it a highlight on Daydream." → "best songs on Daydream by music reviewers, many of which considered it a highlight of the album." Do you need to say Daydream twice so close together? It's kinda obvious it's from Daydream as you mention just a handful of words before, "highlight of the album" is better.
6. "and was performed by throughout the Daydream World Tour." → "and was performed throughout the Daydream World Tour." Don't need "by", think that was a typo.

• Background

1. "being released on April 5, 1996 through Columbia Records." → "and was released...Records". Tense issue, you use the past tense in the lead, makes more sense in the past tense as it is an action which has been done.
2. "The album, later titled Music Box (1993), became" → "The album, titled Music Box (1993), became". Later titled? Not sure if it is really necessary to say that. Didn't make sense when I read it. Actually, reading through the next sentence, I think you need to introduce Music Box a bit more, because you jump straight into it without explaining what it is and it's significance in enough detail, (most successful album by her up until that point, was her third album, included the hits Hero and Dreamlover... allowed for Carey to have more creative control. Something along those lines). I think once you have done that, you need to switch the paragraphs around, and start with how Carey was allowed more creative control for Daydream after the success of Music Box, and then talk about Daydream and Underneath the Stars in particular, because it sets the scene for why Underneath the Stars was created. The background section needs re-working, because at the moment, it's a not cohesive enough.

• Controversy

1. Are you trying to say that Mariah wanted Underneath the Stars and Breakdown on the #1's album, but her record label didn't? Because you don't directly say that and make that point in the first sentence. The first paragraph is a bit all over the place.

• • That is exactly what I'm saying. I've tried to fix the other prose issues as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "Throughout 1998, during which Carey was compiling songs for her first compilation album, Number 1's, "Underneath the Stars", alongside "Breakdown", led to a publicized conflict with Columbia Records." → There are too many breaks in this relatively short sentence. Plus, it doesn't make sense to read toward the end of the sentence, doesn't flow cohesively. You need to say straight away in the first sentence that Mariah wanted those two songs on the album, but her label did not, resulting in a conflict.
2. "To accompany her thirteen number ones, Carey recorded four new songs. She felt that not including any new material would result in cheating her fans, therefore including some new material as well." → Saying "To accompany" and "therefore including" is the same thing, doesn't need to be said twice in one sentence that new songs were included.

• Composition

1. Can you not find any information about the key it was composed in, the chord progression, vocal range, beats per minutes etc? There must be a record of at least one of those somewhere.

• • Nope. I've tried.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• General Points

1. I've got a problem with a source that has been used 12 times in the article, I can't access the book by Chris Nickson. Nor can I view the sources by Jim Argenson or Marc Shaprio. I can't say it is a case of WP:OR, because you have provided a source, but they don't lead to the source, as the references only lead to Wikipedia articles which tell me what an ISBN is. which bare no relation to the book sources you have enlisted. I can't help but think that if a reader wanted to conduct further reader after viewing this article with regard to those sources, they can't, and they shouldn't have to search for the book. Is there not an e-book you could use so that it can be easily accessed online? I don't doubt that what you wrote has been said by those authors, but I can't check it.

• • Already explained that part to you.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall, considering this was not a successful single, had no music video, and was only performed on tour, it is very detailed, but in parts, it is slightly complicated to read. There are simple prose issues that can be easily addressed in the Lead, but some quite major issues with the Background and Controversy sections, and with 3 sources that you have used.

I nearly failed this article, and I guess I should, but I'll put it on hold for 7 days, as it's not really bad, so you can make the amendments and ask me any questions regarding my comments. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been addressed. Article is passed :) Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)