Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:41, 21 November 2010.

All I Want for Christmas Is You

 * Nominator(s): CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   04:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to meet all FA criteria. CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The lead alone contains spelling errors ("It's"), many instances of awkward wording ("In the United States, due to current rules at the time of its release, it was unable to chart on the Hot 100"), and unattributed quotations. Similar problems abound in the rest of the article. Articles should not be brought to FAC with such basic problems. This isn't the first time problems like this are coming up in FACs from this contributor; I hope it will be the last time. Ucucha 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was 1 instance of the "It's", not a big deal. And that other thing is not grammatically incorrect. Anyway its been changed.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'current' is either redundant or incorrect, though. That's poor writing. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I know, current and at the time are opposites. I've fixed that though :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, there are still grammatical errors in the article ("due to suggestion", "a change in Billboard stipulation"). And that is just the first layer—even when the grammar at least is correct, the prose does not reach the standard set by criterion 1a. Please review for WP:LQ compliance. By the way, I am watching this FAC; no need for further posts on my talk page. Ucucha 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the only two instances of that, as with songs you place the comma outside the parenthesis. The other two are fixed as well. Tomorrow, Legolas will do a copy-edit, so I'll let you know after so you can re-consider. Thanks.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Still some problems: More later. Ucucha 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Harvnb links to Nickson (1998) are broken.
 * The "Background and writing" section contains material irrelevant to the background (like that the song became successful).
 * The quote in this section looks like it is about the album, not specifically this song.
 * "It was written in order to contrast the album's strong religious anthem, giving it a "fun and mellow" vibe."—ungrammatical
 * "Due to her desire, Carey and Afanasieff spent hours in the recording studio throughout the summer of 1994, during which the song was conceived."—awkward
 * LQ errors, like 'Roch Parisien of Allmusic called the song "well-crafted,"'.


 * Oppose - Needs to be proofread with a fine-tooth comb, the article is not FAC-ready. Here's a sampling of errors from one section:
 * "The first and most commonly seen is a home video that shows Carey celebrating Christmas with snow, presents, and loved ones." Really? It's a home video? Or is it a music video filmed so as to give viewers the impression it's a home video?
 * "Outdoor scenes shot in New Jersey at the Fairy Tale Forest." First, the sentence is missing a verb; second, the organization of the paragraph is awkward.. the prior and succeeding sentences describe what's happening in the video, and this sentence seems to be misplaced.
 * "Carey's then husband Tommy Mottola made a cameo appearance as Santa Claus is the video." is -> in
 * "It finishes with Santa Claus, played by Mottola," the paragraph already told us two sentences ago who played Santa
 * "For a 1960s look, the video was filmed in black and white, with Carey in white boots and teased up hair; adding to the 1960s theme." these should not be joined with a semicolon
 * Jermaine Dupri and Lil' Bow Wow should be linked at their first mention, rather than later on.
 * Even if these specific errors get fixed up, the underlying prose feels ... underwhelming. Please hook up with someone experienced in crafting words to help the prose sound more professional. Sasata (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know instead of trying to demote everything I nominate, I would appreciate it if you would give me the same courtesy you do here. Anyway, its fixed.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the FAC community would appreciate it if you had your articles proofread by an experienced copyeditor before submitting to FAC, like the example you gave. Bringing poorly-prepared articles to FAC drains limited reviewer time. Sasata (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe if Wikipedia weren't full of rude pessimists such as yourselves I could get that kind of help. Unfortunately, there aren't any that I have found that could give me the kind of proof-reading your looking for.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "You're". Sasata (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't an FA nom article, so I don't need to be proofread :P-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, please.  wacky wace  17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, admin in training. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've stricken the above specific points as requested, but the oppose still stands. Am willing to revisit once an independent copyeditor has gone through it. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "...and the top-ten in various other countries." - top ten doesn't need a hyphen
 * "Its Theme of wanting nothing more than her love for Christmas truly fit the emotions in their marriage at the time." -theme doesn't need a capital t, but whole sentence could do with a rewrite
 * File:Mariah Carey - All I Want For Christmas Is You.ogg is of too high a quality
 * Merry Christmas II You should be linked
 * Surely there are more reviews of the song!
 * Billboard Hot 100 should be Billboard Hot 100
 * There are two instances of "U.S." which should be "US"
 * English translation of "29-sai no Christmas"?
 * "It sold in excess of 1.1 million units on the Japanese record chart" 'on the Japanese record chart' → 'in Japan'?
 * 'Music videos' section could do with more linking.
 * It seems more logical to put this section after the 'Remixes and 2010 version' section
 * tours should be linked. In fact, run through the article and wikify, there is quite a bit of underlinking
 * What's with the Merry Christmas II You track listing?
 * Link charts
 * References need formatting - some are italicising inappropriately, while others have the parent publisher before the worker

Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Adabow thanks. All things have been fixed. However, note that some things have been linked in the lead already, so they aren't underlinked. Everything else was addressed. Thanks :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see any problems with the article now, so I'll support it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this definitely true? :*There are a lot of very short sentences which makes it quite awkward to read at points, e.g. "Instead, the entire video is filmed in animation. The style of the animation is based on a scene in the video for Carey's "Heartbreaker" (1999)." Can this be made into one sentence? (Also is it correct to say "filmed in animation"? :*For the foreign language references, I think you should include a translated quote in the reference of the relevant part of the source. (not done, but realise it doesn't need to be) :*References 34-37 are to Amazon.com - this is not a suitable source for any article, let alone an FA - if independent sources haven't commented on the song being in these albums, then we shouldn't be. SmartSE (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Hi Smartse, thanks for your comments :). So I've fixed everything, except the last one. I mean, Amazon may not be reliable for bio's, but I'm only referencing a track list on an album, I'm sure they can reference that don't ya think. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. The sentence short was only an example though and you need to work on improving the prose in general.
 * I'm still unsure about using Amazon, personally, I see stuff like this as OR, because if no one else has written about the song featuring on the albums, we shouldn't be. I've had a look through the WP:RSN archives to see if this has come up before but couldn't find anything. Perhaps someone else can give their opinion. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is that Amazon may be used to confirm the existence of an album, track, DVD etc, but no more than that. I have not yet checked that these citations to Amazon pass muster on that basis, but if they do I think they can stand. Such citations have been accepted in other music FACs, for example this and this and this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I won't argue if it's been ok before. SmartSE (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Direct quotations need to be cited, even if they are given in the lead. There are two such quotations.
 * I have not yet carried out a full sources review, but I think Rap-up is a print source, so it should be italicised.
 * It's a small point, but three successive sections begin with the album's name. It would be good if you could vary the style.
 * Note: This point appears to have been overlooked, including the mis-titling in the third section. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I still thought you meant in the lead. Now I fixed that too!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Back with a sources review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources review: I am concerned that these citations to the Amazon sales site do not provide full support for what is stated in the text. Can you look at these again?
 * Citations to Amazon:
 * "All I Want For Christmas Is You" was featured on the soundtrack for the 2003 British film, Love Actually, where it was covered by Olivia Olson."[34]
 * The source lists the movie soundtrack and below lists the singer.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 2004, Swedish pop group Play covered the song for their Christmas album, Play Around the Christmas Tree."[35]
 * Lists band, holiday album, and track listing.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "My Chemical Romance covered the song in 2004, which appeared on the charity album Kevin & Bean's Christmastime in the 909.[36]
 * It is sourced.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "After releasing two studio albums, American girl group The Cheetah Girls covered the song for their first holiday album, Cheetah-licious Christmas."[37]
 * Removed the "after two studio albums" part because thats not in the source. Added just the release date instead.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Other sources issues
 * Ref 10: About.com is part of The New York Times Company, not part of the paper itself. Therefore, "The New York Times Company" should not be italicised
 * Ref 11 lacks publisher details
 * Ref 20: indicate this is in Danish
 * Ref 51: indicate in Norwegian. This also looks like a subscription site.
 * All fixed. This is the official Norwegian certification database. Its readily verifiable.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the verifiability of the Norwegian source (now 50). I can't read Norwegian, but the page looks like a log-in. I am asking whether this is a free or a subscription service. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, wel no its not a subscription site. Anyone can readily use it without any prior subscription. Just search.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than these issues, sources and citations are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: The whole tracklistings section needs to be sourced. A lso, I believe the digital chart should be removed per WP:USCHART/WP:BADCHARTS. L astly, for the chart section, chartings in different years should appear like this Hey_Ya! Candy  o32  02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All fixed :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The other two issues are still pending. Well the first is sort of, but there are still issues with sourcing track listing, including unsourced and sourced (album liner notes are cited for a UK CD single) and the charts for the different years need to be like the FA article Candy  o32  Hey Ya!.  Candy  o32  04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated before, the album liner notes are irrelevant to the sourcing of different tracklistings. This isn't the album tracklisting, these are CD singles, etc. I don't see how the album liner notes prove this. Candy  o32  00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Neither of the non-free images pass WP:NFCC and hence the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Candy  o32  20:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Important comment for FAC directors I have addressed the issue he pointed out and have asked him twice to come back and check it out. He removed my notice twice and refuses to respond. It isn't fair and mean of him to do. Here is the first time and the second time. Thank you-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? There is only 1 non-free, which is the screen shot for the music video which many FAs DO have. he other two are from commons so they are free to use without problems.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both non-free images must only be used if they are subject to critical commentary; for example in the instance of the still image from the video, you must state the significance of the scene in the video. Back up critical commentary with sources which analyse the video&mdash;if there is no critical commentary on the non-free media, it does not increase the reader's understanding of the article.  wacky wace  19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you keep saying both? There is only 1, which is the music video shot which I fixed. added critical commentary on those scenes so I believe  addressed the issue.-- CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   20:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Mariahcarey alliwantforchristmasisyou.png is the other non-free image, which requires suitable analysis. Why were those colours chosen for the cover? Does the design reflect the content of the song? Is the design reflective of the characteristics of the singer's music? On another note, while you did add analysis of the video in the text, it would be better suited as an addition to the image caption. You could still simply have that in the text and not require the non-free image.  wacky wace  20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, every article has a cover. I mean you guys are pulling stuff out that isn't fair. Every FA music article has an album or single cover. I added info about it anyway. About both.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. We are not trying to find every little niggle about the article; we are pointing out issues that make the article one that is not up to the FA criteria. There is little doubt the article you have written is good, but there is no point in passing an article that is not up to scratch. We are not at all attacking your work; we are trying to make it better.  wacky wace  11:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely oppose the removal of the single cover. As the nominator pointed out, yes you are somehow pointing obvious facts. An article about a song, which was released as a single, will have a sigle cover, such as afilm article will have a poster. Now whether it pertains to the color she chose, and whether such information is available or not. I admit the music video image needs a critical support for its inclusion, but please lets not waste time in going through obvious facts. If such reasons are the conditions of your oppose, then I'm afraid it is vestigial. Same goes for Fasach Nua. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I have never opposed the article, and have never supported the removal of the singles cover. I was merely attempting to inform the nominator of Fasach Nua's position. I do not think that the points I raised were "obvious facts"; if they were they would have been addressed before the nomination. However, they appear to have been addressed, and I am happy to support the article. The nominator has my sincerest apologies if he considers my opinions to be in bad faith, but I hope they can understand that, in posting my comments, I was attempting to make this article better. It is a well-written article. Good work.  wacky wace  07:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you very much Wackywace! Its very much appreciated :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see an issue with the prose at the moment. Reads fairly well. Good work--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! but please also leave some feedback to help me or reviewers.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;1a. Minor surface changes to the lead alone demonstrate the need for a fresh opinion: a copy-editor unfamiliar with the text. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Firstly, while your changes are nice, both versions were grammatically correct. You didn't point out anything improper or wrong. So I don't see really instances where it needs an independent copy-edit.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Grammatically correct" is just the bare minimum; prose can be far below FA standards while still being grammatically correct. Ucucha 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but the article reads well. I even had an independent copy-editor stop by.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the article is heading in the right direction. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is a good guide to follow. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for concerns on use of non-free media:
 * File:Mariahcarey alliwantforchristmasisyou.png: There is somewhat of a concensus for the use of non-free material for the identification of a subject (albums, video games, books) if there is no suitable free replacement, so this image could satisfy the non-replaceability criteria. What is concerning however, is the source.  WP:CITE requests for a specific source (url or publication information).  "The cover art can or could be obtained from Columbia Records" does not satisify this; it is obvious the image was not obtained from the Wikipedia article on Columbia Records.  Neither is there contact information on who to contact at Columbia Records or such (did anyone actually tried calling the record company to acquire this image?).
 * File:12 All I Want For Christmas Is You- Extra Festive.ogg: "To demonstrate song in article" is too vague. What specific aspect of this sample is required to help readers understand something written in the article?  Why can words not help the reader understand this aspect?  These should be mentioned in the rationale.
 * File:Mariah Carey - All I Want For Christmas Is You.ogg: The same for this music sample.
 * File:Aiwfciy.jpg: "To view or show the music video screenshot of Mariah Carey's single 'All I Want for Christmas Is You'" is simply decorative&mdash;failure of WP:NFCC criterion 8.
 * These should be resolved by either through properly fleshing out the fair use rationales or removing any unjustified images. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I removed the music video screenshot and added allot of new info for both "purpose" on both samples. I believe thats what you asked for. I don't see what you expect to be done for the cover photo though. Its the same as all other FAs, so I don't see what your expecting of me.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external link that redirected. -- Pres N  19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Other issues&mdash;I noticed the critical reception section is completely positive&mdash;it may be a good idea to offer some published negative criticism, if any&mdash;of course, you don't want to give that POV undue weight. Also, a general "Reception" header, with "chart performance" as a level two header underneath, would look a lot better. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two sections called Chart performance&mdash;these should probably be integrated. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey so I took your suggestion with the headers etc. However, I could not find any negative reception for the original song, but as proof, I have criticism for the 2010 version, in case you didn't read that. So while I couldn't get criticism on the original, I found and had already there for the re-make. I also tried my best to fix the grammar further. I hope I addressed all you concerns. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No major issues. In the background section, "last studio album Music Box..", "previous studio album" would be better, I guess. In remixes section, "Becky Brain from Idolator gave the song praise..." - wouldn't "praised the song" suit more? Just my opinion. No vice 7  Talk  10:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. Yup makes allot of sense. I fixed that.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support No vice 7  Talk  10:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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