Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 05:14, 21 December 2010.

All I Want for Christmas Is You

 * Nominator(s): CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   06:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because believe it to now meet all FA criteria. I want to give a special thanks to all those who participated last time, and of course to my friend Legolas, who copy-edited the article. CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support — Wow. Beautifully written. Support from me. No vice 7  Talk  06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   07:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP Mariah Carey participant. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)|content=
 * Comments
 * "The song was written by Carey and Walter Afanasieff, who also served as co-arranger and producer." - wouldn't arranging be part of writing?
 * Now it says "The song was written by Carey and Walter Afanasieff, who also served as co-writer and producer." - so Afanasieff wrote and co-wrote the song? Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "As an up-tempo love song" - remove 'as'
 * Link Santa suit (capital 'S', too)
 * "It incorporates the sound from bell chimes, drum notes, as well as heavy beats and grooves." - why are there two lists of two items? Why not merge?
 * 'common time' is sufficient, rather than "common (4/4) time"
 * Parisien's quote is given in a way that makes it grammatically incorrect. What about 'According to Roch Parisien from Allmusic, the song contains "The Beach Boys-style harmonies...'?
 * "Editor of The Boston Globe, Steve Morse, gave the album a positive review, particularly complimenting the song. Morse felt Carey sang with soul and blended her original song in balance with other traditional hymns." - the album is irrelevant here - focus on the song
 * Bill Lamb was dead long before the song was written
 * I am pretty sure that not every critic was ecstatic about the song - are there any negative reviews?
 * "one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season and continues to set records each year" needs attribution
 * "Since its release, the song has topped the Billboard Hot 100 Re-currents chart every year in December from 2005-08, and has become the best-selling holiday ringtone; the first to be certified double-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." - whoa! Major rewrite needed
 * What is the "Billboard Hot 100 Re-currents chart"?
 * "In 2009, "All I Want for Christmas Is You" topped the singles chart in Belgium Wallonia and Flanders, during its sixth and seventh week on the 2009 chart, respectively." - they're not called "Belgium Wallonia" and "Flanders", Wallonia and Flanders are territories of Belgium. This sentence needs rewording
 * "In Denmark, it peaked at number four, staying in the charts" - why plural?
 * Where are you getting your Japanese translations from? '才' (sai) means 'years' in Japanese, not days. Can you source a translation?
 * Remove picture from 'Sales and impact' as it is almost exactly the same as the one lower down
 * Does the "Extra Festive" remix sample need to be there?
 * "Anderson concluded its review with "the fact that she is responsible for such a charming, catchy and listenable Christmas song should secure her place in the pop star hall of fame." - what does his comment have to do with the remix?
 * Do you need the "We dare you." part of the Idolator quote?
 * " Rap-Up described the newer version as "with a new orchestral introduction" - awkward
 * Where are the music video directors?
 * The second video is still missing its director Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'The X Factor' needs italics
 * "A Japanese band named Suemitsu & the Suemith" → Japanese band Suemitsu & the Suemith
 * "covered the song for their EP titled, Holiday Bundle" -remove comma after 'titled'
 * 'Sales and certifications' section should be renamed 'Certifications'
 * Has not been done yet. What is "MT", and why not merge the two RIAJ and RIAA cells? Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mariahcarey alliwantforchristmasisyou.png needs a source, File:12 All I Want For Christmas Is You- Extra Festive.ogg needs to be reduced per WP:SAMPLE, although as above I don't really think it warrants inclusion. Otherwise, media seem fine

Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and no dab links, but a dead EL Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Links are all fine now Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All done :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

}}


 * Support — I'm happy to support now; the prose is looking much better than last time. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - Only two concerns. The first sentence in the critical reception needs to be reworded to not include "contemporary." As a song released in 1994, I doubt all the reviews for it would be from contemporary critics. Also I was under the impression that only the highest peaks of the song was listed, not every time it re-appeared on this chart. Is there something that says otherwise? Candy  o32  03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Candy, thanks for your comments. So I removed it like you mentioned. As for the chart positions, I added all the positions I could readily source. Usually we try to list the highest peak from each year it charted, which think I did. However, if it only appeared on the chart in France lets say for one week at #99, I added it because it is a peak. I pretty much added all I could find.-- CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   04:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Candy  o32  - Merry CHRISTmas :)  15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Candy! :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP Mariah Carey participant. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)|content=
 * Comments  by Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Infobox
 * Artice's images have ALT text, why the cover not?


 * Lead
 * No sources in the lead.
 * According to Wiki rules, a direct quote needs attribution and sources whenever mentioned, even the lead :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in Australia, Japan, The Netherlands, -> It is the Netherlands, isn't it?
 * "Its lyrics describe a woman's declaration that she does not care about Christmas presents or lights; all she desires for Christmas is to spend time with her lover." -> Never mentioned in the article.


 * Background and writing
 * Christmas -> Wikilink it, relevant for the article.
 * "she agreed to record Christmas tunes. The single's cover is a still from the music video, showing" -> Confused. If there is a period it must still talking about the same topic. In this case, you pass from talking about Carey's interest of release a Christmas album to the cover of the single release. And later, you return to talk about the background of the song. This need a better tweak.


 * Composition
 * up-tempo -> Link it.
 * Afanasieff -> who?, never mentioned beyond the lead


 * Critical response
 * Roch Parisien from Allmusic -> already mentioned. Maybe: Parisien called the song
 * "Carey sang with a lot of soul" -> soul music?
 * link Merry Christmas II You and unlink it from other sections.


 * Sales and impact
 * "All Want for Christmas Is You" has become one of the essential... copyrighted text... according to Legacy Recordings". -> Lead states that according to Legacy Recordings AND PR Newswire.
 * "In the United States, due to the Billboard rules at the time" -> And those rules were...
 * number 6 -> WP:Numbers
 * in late December/early January -> MOS:SLASH
 * the song finally charted -> POV
 * Additionally, it is the first to be certified -> the first single ever? or the first Holiday single?
 * single prior to the 2000s decade; the highest charting female and holiday entry on the list -> Need a better c/e suggest -> single prior to the 2000s decade; and Carey became the highest charting female and holiday entry on the list (whivh list BTW)
 * It says it in the first part of the sentence, the best-selling digital singles released prior to the 2000s decade.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jermaine Dupri and Bow Wow -> Who and who?


 * Music videos
 * video was created for the So So Def remix as well -> synonyms needed for "as well", this is the fourth time I read it.
 * Jermaine Dupri, and Lil' Bow Wow, -> unlink them, they must go before.
 * Link NBA


 * Live performances and cover versions
 * Per ALT, the text of File:Mariahparade1.jpg is very basic, you can improve it.
 * It was part of the set-list during the Japanese shows of Carey's Daydream World Tour (1996), Butterfly World Tour (1998), Rainbow World Tour (2000), Charmbracelet World Tour (2002–03) -> they have wikilinks
 * from his 6th album and his 1st Christmas album, A Wonderful Christmas. -> from his sixth album and his first Christmas album, A Wonderful Christmas.
 * I didn't add that, some IP added it with crappy English and no source.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * References
 * Ref 9 -> Stylus Magazine. - Stylus Magazine.
 * Ref 10 -> Is The New York Times Company published by About.com?
 * Ref 2 and 16 -> is Nielsen Business Media published by Yahoo! Music?
 * Ref 39 -> is The Walt Disney Company published by Disney.com?
 * Ref 40 -> Carey website publish Rolling Stone?


 * Got it! All done, thanks for your comments Tbhotch :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

}}
 * Support — No major issues. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :D-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources issue: This relates to an issue not fully resolved in the last FAC. Ref. 78 is a Norwegian search site, used to support the album's platinum certification in the UK. How does it do this? If I am using the search correctly, I get a table (in Norwegian) that includes a X in the "P" column for an album called "Merry Christmas". No mention of the UK that I can see. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes good catch, I've added the correct source for the UK certifications (BPI). Thanks-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will do a full sources review later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comments: Sourcing issues were mainly resolved at the last FAC. A few further points:-
 * Ref 22: The words "Royal Charter" are superfluous here
 * Ref 46: Where does "Junk Gnomes" come from? The sources is in Norwegian - needs to be noted.
 * Ref 59: What makes Bigtimeruchtv.com a high quality reliable source?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed the top two, as for the third. Its their official website. All its doing is referenceing the fact that they covered the song, nothing important. I think their website should be enough right?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The chord progression in the composition section doesn't appear to make sense. "A♭-F ♭-1" is how it is written, which is invalid. I tried to look for the sheet music that is referenced, but there are multiple versions at Musicnotes.com, so the specific one needs to be linked to in the reference. Back to the chord progression: there are much more than 2 or 3 chords in this song, so this appears to be incomplete. Furthermore, "♭-1" is not a note... "F♭1" is. According to all the copies of the sheet music I've looked at on Musicnotes, the chord progression should start on G. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 18:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the chord progression was changed, but it's still not correct. What's listed in the article is the chord-progression for the opening notes on piano, before the vocals enter. What should be listed is the chord progression for the entire song - it should begin with G–G/B–C–Cm/E♭... and there is still an entire second half of the verse that is not listed in the free preview of the music sheet. You should have someone who is more knowledgeable with reading music (and who may have the entire file) provide the full chord progression. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 07:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what are "various drum notes"? I hardly doubt this song is notable for having a rhythm section, but the way it is written, that's what I interpret the sentence to mean. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fixes, I appreciate it. Now I don't understand the issue you have there. I'm not saying drum notes make the song notable, all I'm doing is describing the various instruments and musical arrangements featured in the song.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are stating the song has "various drum notes", though. Presumably, most songs in pop music have drums or a rhythm section. Are you saying that the song is polyrhythmic? Are you saying it has multiple tracks of drums? Why exactly are you noting the song's drums in the article lead? At the moment it just sounds like you are mentioning it in passing and it reads awkwardly. One other change I would suggest is making the last paragraph of the lead shorter, either by splitting it or by trimming more specific information off of it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The chord progression is still not correct. This must be fixed if this article is to become a Featured Article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it not correct? 3 people have already looked at it. If you see something we don't, then can you fix it?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many people reviewed the chord progression, but I can tell it's wrong, because as it currently stands, that chord progression is for the first 8 seconds or so of the song, and not inclusive of the verses/choruses. The chord progression should begin with G–G/B–C–Cm/E♭, as you should be able to see from all the following variation of the song's sheet music:    Unfortunately, I only can see the free preview of the sheet music, so what I am seeing is incomplete. So to say that the proper chord progression should be this or that is irrelevant if we can't provide the entire thing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, as long as there is a section called "Trivia", this article has little-to-no chance of being promoted to FA. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments - The article reads a bit better than its previous two incarnations at FAC, but I'm not convinced the interim copyediting efforts have been sufficient. Here's my analysis of just the lead. Note: I'm not opposing (three in a row seems cruel), and I have this page watchlisted, so there's no need to leave messages on my talk page. I just leave the info here to help the FAC delegate make a more informed decision about promotion. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I have no issues about this article.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * link single
 * "it incorporates pop music and traditional beats." How does it "incorporate" pop music? Isn't that a genre of music? what's a tradition beat (article doesn't explain it later)?
 * what does up-tempo mean? It links to tempo, but that article doesn't explain it either. Our article Glossary of musical terminology uses the term without a hyphen
 * "It presents movie snippets of Carey decorating a Christmas tree" what is a "movie snippet"? The main article just says "snippets".
 * link So So Def; remix
 * "The song is one of the few in recent years to be considered a holiday classic" While the main article does confirm it's generally considered a holiday classic, I can't see where it says it's "one of the few"
 * "Additionally, Scotland's largest circulated newspaper, The Herald" The main article does not mention "largest circulated newspaper"
 * ""… the nations top festive song."" The quote has been transcribed incorrectly, making it seem like there was an error in the original (rather than introduced here).
 * "has been covered by various artists" link "covered"
 * "reaching the top two position in Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom; it also reached the top ten in various other countries" top two and top ten of what charts?
 * link Billboard; ringtone
 * "Additionally, the song is the nineteenth best-selling digital single prior to the 2000s decade, the highest charting entry by a female or holiday song on the list." missing "and"
 * All fixed and more :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I supported last time, and the second time around the prose are better, there is more info. The article in general is much better. I'm happy to once again support.--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Contribs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has multiple deficiencies, the above "supports" concern me, and I hope it will get some serious review. Samples only: I stopped there-- enough to concern me that a serious prose review is needed, and I haven't checked sourcing or copyvio. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead:   It presents scenes of Carey decorating a Christmas tree, spending time in the snow, and performing other festive activities. Carey performed the song live during the Japanese leg of her Daydream World Tour (1996), Butterfly World Tour (1998) and Charmbracelet World Tour (2002–2003), as well as the Walt Disney World Christmas Day Parade in 2004, which aired on ABC. A So So Def remix version was released in 2000, ...
 * Performing ... performed, repetitive prose. What is a "So So Def" remix?
 * 1) Lead: Due to its extended popularity and relevancy, ... ???
 * 2) Lead:   top ten in various other countries .... various other is redundant.
 * 3) WP:PUNC logical quotation review needed.
 * 4) Weasel:  Reportedly, the song's inspiration and theme came from Carey's sentiments toward then husband, Tommy Mottola. ... reported by whom?  How serious is this source?  If serious, why do we need to say reportedly?
 * 5) Multiple grammar issues: the song spans from the note of G3 to the high note of G5.[7] The song contains choral lyrics written by Carey, who produced the song's melody and chorus. Aside from assisting with its chord progression, Walter Afanasieff co-arranged and produced the track as well.


 * Hi Sandy, thanks for your comments. So I don't mean to be rude, but these 6 errors are very small, nothing major, and you did manage to get about a third of the way through the article. So it really isn't so bad. Please if there are any other concerns, please mention them. Thanks.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nathan, what Sandy did is the logical thing done by most experienced reviewers at FAC. They take out a chunk portion of the article and review it. If it is littered with grammatical and prose errors, it is deduced that the hwole body will have those problems. He checked the lead only and then he "stopped", stating the problems. And yes, some of those supports will appear as a concern to him since by a single block he found those errors. Nathan, you can ask User:Tony1 against prose parts which you feel are problematic. Tony1 is a great content editor. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One suggestion (i see most of her articles have this problem) - Would be best not to force the number of columns used to display refs, should use  and or   that will create columns with a minimum width of 30em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser and/or screen size. Moxy (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Prose quality does not meet the criterion. The problem of the unexplicated "So So Def remix" reference in the lede that Sandy identified remains. Other issues very early in the article:


 * [Lede:] "In 2010, Carey re-recorded the song for her thirteenth studio and second holiday album, Merry Christmas II You, titled 'All I Want for Christmas Is You (Extra Festive)'."

Incorrect. The title of the song remains the same. This is a title of a particular version, a fact that the sentence fails to grammatically convey.
 * I'm sorry you don't agree, but this is the song's title and it fits in well.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [Lede:] "It has become 'one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season and continues to set records each year,' according to Legacy Recordings."

It is very dubious to quote record company publicity material in the lede of an encyclopedia article. It is absolutely ridiculous to quote such material for pure puffery like "one of the essential musical hallmarks of the holiday season".
 * It happens to be true, but i removed it from the lead.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [Lede:] "'All I Want for Christmas Is You' has been covered by various artists in both live and studio versions."

"Various"? What does that possibly mean in this context? Did you mean to say "many"? "Several"? Does "both live and studio versions" really need to be spelled out?


 * [Lede:] "...reaching the top two position on the single charts..."

The "top two position"? Not English. The "top two" suffices (though "number one or two" strikes me as more idiomatic).


 * [Lede:] "it also reached the top ten in various countries."

"Various"—ungainly again, and repetitious, with "various" in previous sentence.


 * [Lede:] "The song has been a 'perennial radio and record chart-topper' during every holiday season since its release."

What's the source of this impressive quote? Ah. Record company publicity material. Oy.
 * This one I won't remove. This is not even opinion like the other, its fact. Every year the song re-enters most singles charts around the wrold and performs well. Additionally, it is played heavily on radios every year as well.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [Background and writing:] "After the success of her previous studio album Music Box, Carey decided to record a holiday album to be released the following year."

"Previous" is excess verbiage. If you're going to refer to the "following year", the base year--1993--should register in the flow of the sentence, rather than be relegated to a parenthetical. Thus: "After the success of her 1993 studio album Music Box, Carey decided to record a holiday album to be released the following year."


 * [Background and writing:] "Due to pressure from her label, and her love for the holidays and festive music, she agreed to record Christmas tunes."

Incoherent. The previous sentence informed us that she decided to record a holiday album. Do you think anyone assumed that she was considering recording Chanukah tunes? Kwanzaa tunes? Labor Day tunes? And what exactly is the story? Did she decide to record a holiday album, somehow inspired by the success of Music Box? Or did she agree to do so, under pressure from her label? The story-telling here seriously fails.


 * [Background and writing:] "While recording various religious and famed holiday covers, Carey felt the need to write original material as well."

If we are to take this sentence literally, Carey did not feel the need to write original holiday material until she was already involved in recording the album. That's not unbelievable, but it would be unusual. We would expect that the original material on the album, such as this song, would have been conceived and composed before recording began. So: If the unusual meaning conveyed by the present sentence is actually correct, it needs to be articulated more definitively, so no one is left wondering. If, however, it is incorrect, it obviously needs to be corrected. Also, the use of "famed" is awkward here.


 * [Background and writing:] "Its 'fun and mellow' vibe contrasted with the album's strong religious anthem, giving Merry Christmas an equal balance of genres."

This is poor writing. "Anthem" is clearly wrong. Did you mean "theme"? "Equal balance of genres"? What?? What "genres"? A "vibe" is not a genre. "Equal balance"? There are eleven songs on the album. How does one song give it an "equal balance" of anything?


 * [Background and writing:] "The song's inspiration and theme..."

Excess verbiage. Think about it. Are readers deprived of any significant information if they read simply of the "song's inspiration" or the "song's theme"?

I was unimpressed by the response to Sandy's cogent observations. It is in the nature of prose issues that each individual problem will often seem "nothing major", even "very small". That's not the point. The point is the prevalence of problems, and they are very prevalent in this article. The prose is mediocre, not good, and most certainly not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".—DCGeist (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, your constructive criticism is accepted and welcomed, but I will not tolerate rude or mean comments. I worked hard on the article, so calling it mediocre, not good and less than professional is uncalled for, mean and spiteful. Here you are to give contructive criticism, not comments laced with mean and hurtful comments. Pointing out your concerns is enough, but insulting my work or the article is not needed and quite frankly, disgusting. By the way, "So So Def Remix" doesn't need any explanation. That is the name of the remix, end of story. Shouldn't you also ask why the song is called "All I Want for Christmas Is You"? no! Its the same thing. I corrected your concerns and more. Thanks.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Mainly prose issues, but also I think there is an issue with precision and technical language. I would expect more musical terminology to be used in such an article, but some sections seem vague to me. I have not looked at sourcing. So far, I have only read the first half of the article and sampled the rest. More detailed comments: More comments: Some clean up done here, but to me, it is a little worrying that an article came to FAC with such obvious problems. Please get someone else to have a look. There remain big problems (examples only):
 * Second paragraph of lead seems a little random: why are we saying the occasions on which she sung it live?
 * I followed the format I've seen on other FA articles such as 4 Minutes (Madonna song)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it OK. It more or less works in the lead of 4 Minutes but comes across as a list here with no reason to be in the lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A So So Def remix version was released in 2000": Despite what has already been said here, I have no idea what this means and an explanation would be good.
 * I've said it above, that is its name, there is no specific reason that I'm aware of.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Music critics have universally lauded..." I find this a little difficult to believe. As written, it says that every music critic says it is good. I'm sure there are some dissenters, so why not change to "Many music critics have lauded..."
 * I see this has been changed, but now does not quite make sense: "Many music critics have universally lauded". No need for universally at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The song is the nineteenth best-selling digital single of the 20th century, and the highest charting entry by a female or holiday song on the list.": This seems a little trivial and no great achievement, but not a huge issue for me.
 * I left this but removed the next one, is that ok?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really feel it should be there, keep it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since its release, the song has been a "perennial radio and record chart-topper" during every holiday season since its release.": where is the quote from? It should be attributed in the text.
 * "It is the best-selling holiday ringtone in the US, with sales of more than two million.": For me, this is trivia.
 * Removed-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the background section, could some details be given about her career to this point? Personally, I know little about her and it would be good to know a little about what she had done to this point. As it is, this section feels light.
 * I tried a bit, but if you look at the last FAC, I got screwed because I had exactly what your asking for. Supposedly I need only info related directly to the song. I hope this is ok.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the last FAC but could not see where this was mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Author Chris Nickson described the song as "fun and mellow," and felt its energy level contrasted with the album's strong religious theme, assisting Merry Christmas cross demographic barriers." Not sure what this means. What is energy level? Does it mean tempo? Dynamics? Which demographic barriers? How? Why?
 * Done, I made it much clearer-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck the comment but I feel this section lacks coherence and does not strike me as thorough. For example, there are few comments about the different sections of the song, or influences. While I suspect many song articles, like 4 Minutes, follow this structure, does that mean nothing better is possible. For example, What'd I Say seems to be much more thorough in this section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...which blends pop music and traditional beats." What are traditional beats in this context? Blends how?
 * "It incorporates the sound from bell chimes, drum notes, heavy beats and grooves." Is "it" the instrumentation? How can it incorporate the sound from drum notes when drum notes are a sound themselves, and actually link to bass drum. Again, could you be more precise about what "heavy beats" are, and "grooves" seems unencyclopedic unless it is a precise technical expression which I have never heard (in which case it should be linked).
 * "As part of "layering the song,"": unencyclopedic. Could we use a more precise musical term?
 * "Carey wrote the song's lyrics, and produced the melody and chorus." Is this produced meaning she was the producer or produced meaning created? If the former, who produced the rest?
 * "Walter Afanasieff co-arranged and produced the track, creating many of its instrumentals in the studio." Co-arranged with who? How did he create the instrumentals, did he perform them?
 * The lead states that Carey and Afanasieff wrote the song, but this does not come across in the main body. The two points above do not make it clear what each person did. It should be clear what the role of each person was in writing/producing the song.
 * "Live performances and cover versions": This is a very repetitive list which does not make easy reading. News reports section is very trivial.
 * I tried making it less repetative, I hope it isn't a big issue, but with a highly covered song, its hard to write it out. As for the news report thing, do you forsure require it removal for your support? If so I'll gladly remove it.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole article seems a little POV, with nothing critical to say. Possibly a little starry-eyed? Maybe there is nothing critical to say, but I doubt it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it might seem that way, but I honestly have been unable to find any. I'm not sure if you got to the bottom half, but I wrote criticism directed at the 2010 version, because that's all I was able to find. I did my best.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I find it difficult to believe that everyone loved the original version. I would like more evidence of that in the article, as the sentence that it was univerally well received is not sourced: only some sample reviews are given and there is no way of knowing if these are representative. I counted six reviews, the majority of them online. How many of them are full reviews and how many of them come from the song's original release. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Punctuation: There are several commas which should not be there: "It incorporates various instrumentals including, bell ...", "composed in a contemporary, pop style".
 * Clarity: Some parts do not make sense: "and felt its up-tempo beat contrasted with the album's strong religious theme, assisting Merry Christmas appeal to teenage audiences." (What is Merry Christmas appeal? How can a beat contrast with a theme? How can a beat assist an appeal? Why does a beat appeal to teenagers in particular?) "After the album's release, many promotional singles were released, some serving as Christian airplay radio stations" (The singles were radio stations? That is how it reads. Were the singles released simply to promote the album?) "In the United States, due to the Billboard rules at the time not allowing songs without a commercial release to chart, the song did not debut on the Billboard Hot 100 during its original release." (So it's original release was not a commercial release? Err... What?)
 * Comprehensiveness: See above for concerns about composition, but also I wonder if there could be more about the writing of the song, or draft versions of it.
 * Prose: Needs a thorough copy-edit. The sentences do not flow and seem to jump from topic to topic. For example, the first sentences in Composition refer to the song, its lyrics, its instrumentation, background vocals, key, lyrics, instruments. In background: "For Carey to be perceived as an entertainer by the public, and not just a pop singer, she was pressured to record a Christmas album by her label, Columbia Records. Having grown up in a religious Catholic family, she agreed to record the album." Who wanted her to be perceived as an entertainer? Her label, the public or Carey? Not clear from the prose. Also, would she not have agreed to this pressure had her family not been religious and Catholic? (And devout Catholic is the better way to phrase this, as I'm not sure what an unreligious Catholic family would be like).
 * Sourcing: For this to be comprehensive, I would imagine more print sources are needed. For example, music publications would review the song in more detail and discuss it critically, or even newspaper reviews from the time. I could be mistaken, but I do not see anything like this in the references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: A message asserting that "the issues were fixed" was left on my Talk page. A quick glance reveals that while some of the specific issues I raised have been addressed, others have most definitely not. In addition, that quick glance reveals that new problems have arisen:


 * [Lede:] "Many music critics have universally lauded 'All I Want for Christmas Is You'."


 * [Lede:] "...during every holiday season since its release.[3]."

A further quick glance show that prose problems arise repeatedly beyond the lede and the Background and writing section I specifically addressed. I believe this FA nomination was premature.—DCGeist (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The article lacks a sufficient analysis of music and lyrics. At FA level, one expects an almost phrase by phrase analysis of the music and some detail about the lyrics such as meter and rhyme scheme. At FA level, works of art are expected to include detailed analyses of themes, content, context, etc. but these song articles expect to skate through on nothing more than lists of chart ratings, sales figures, and celebrity tittle-tattle. Gimme a break. If there are no detailed analyses in reliable secondary sources about music and lyrics then song articles such as this should not be up for FA promotion. What bothers me most is that many of these articles appear to be written by the musically illiterate.56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, do not isult the nominators, because I'm sure you haven't got the slightest clue of music or the industry. SO think about that before calling me illiterate. Secondly, your making up broad issues that do not exist simply to oppose. You haven;t made one specific comment because you don't have them, you simply look for mass wording to oppose. S0 far, 10 editors both young and old have read through, and the main complaint has been prose, not one about your nonsense "musical engineering".-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 56yvf, I have to ask you to be civil while posting your comments. Another instance of calling others as illeterate, you are breaking WP:NPA on a bigger ground, and WP:ANI will be your place to comment on. And as I have said before also, do not oppose on grounds which are simply illogical and baseless. And please, do not sock. I have notified admins of this. Delegates, please note of this user and the comments. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. While I am fairly bad at checking prose, I have problems with some of the sources cited.
 * "Music critics have universally praised the song." I highly doubt that EVERY critic in the world praised the song. This sounds very POV to me.
 * I am not convinced that amazon.com is a RS; however, it is possible to find another source that serves the same function. (Refs 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 56)
 * I have the same problems with jb hifi source (Ref 59)


 * Cite the real Rolling Stone review and not the press release from Carey's website. (ref 43)
 * In general an artist own website isn't a secondary source. (41, 43, 44, 45)


 * File:Mariah-carey-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-1994.jpg Has the wrong licence on it..
 * the description claims the single is from Madonna

--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed some off the issues you pointed out. As for her website. I'm sorry, but her official website is sufficient to source her tour setlists. Her website isn't referencing sales, critical stuff, just her setlist and live performances, which is what an official website is for. Please consider that. Secondly, as for Amazon, it is only soucing that these artists covers exist and are for sale. Please see here at the articles first FAC, where two experienced editors brought up the issue and agreed its acceptable. It is used in various FA's for these kind of things, so please check it out.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I weighed in with comments above, but I want to make my stance more official. I oppose the promotion based on the continued prose issues. For all the changes that Petergriffin9901 is making to resolve previous prose problems, new ones are continually being introduced. It looks like from all of this activity, a more stable version of the article will need to emerge and then a more comprehensive peer review and copyedit will be needed before the article is ready. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


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