Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forever (Mariah Carey song)/archive1

Forever (Mariah Carey song)

 * Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

From September 1995 to May 1996, Mariah Carey spent six months at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart with three singles from Daydream. Columbia Records released "Forever" as the fourth US single and fifth overall. No other Carey song would surpass "Forever"'s peak of number two on the adult contemporary chart in the US until "Oh Santa!" some 14 years later, perhaps showing how making this type of music did not last "forever" for her :P Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * ""Forever" was related to Carey's past work." - I think maybe ""Forever" was compared to Carey's past work." would work better
 * In the reception section, there's a bit of a mixing of tenses. You have "Pitchfork writer Jamieson Cox said it shows" but "Cleveland.com writer Troy L. Smith said it paled"
 * "thought it was one of her best singles that did not reach number one" => "thought it was one of her best singles not to reach number one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All should be addressed. Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * nudge. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - apologies, I didn't realise you had replied last weekend. Always best to tag me as I regularly forget I have even reviewed articles so don't come back to check for replies :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Review from brachy0008
Hi there! Thanks for your help on So It Goes.... I decided to do this article, and it’s my first FAC (got some advice from an experienced FA nominator, ZKang123). I’ll try to dig up as much content as possible.

Image review

 * Image checks out.
 * Thanks for checking this.

Prose review
Since "Forever" was promoted to GA status in 2010, I think it may need more brushing up. I would also focus a bit more on wording than my GA reviews.
 * Anything specific you noticed? The article has been completely rewritten since 2010.
 * I'll try to find some comments on the prose. However, given the comment you addressed, I would mainly focus on the wordings.

Lead

 * The lead is a bit relatively short... You can try expanding it a bit more.
 * As the article is less than 2,500 words a two-paragraph lead aligns with MOS:LEADLENGTH. thanks for your comments so far. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception

 * Not sure what it means by waltz form.
 * Changed "form" to "tempo"
 * 55 of 76 → 55 out of 76
 * Changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Release and commercial performance

 * Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap. Smith said it showed how Columbia was "trying to milk the success of Daydream". Critics from music magazines predicted the song would become a success. seems a bit choppy. Just a concern.
 * Combined the first two sentences: "Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap and Smith said it showed how Columbia was 'trying to milk the success of Daydream'." Heartfox (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review (minor)
I would mainly focus on the source formatting (I would be pissy about it, that's the tea) because I would be confident that the sourcing is verifiable.
 * FN 27: Since Penske Media Corporation runs Rolling Stone (which is reliable in culture), I’d assume that Gold Derby would be reliable as well. But best double check it. Also missing archive link.
 * Gold Derby and the author Daniel Montgomery have been cited in books by quality publishers like NYU Press, McFarland, Northwestern University Press so I think that lends credibility.
 * Added archive link
 * FN 31: Was RPM reliable?
 * Yes, it was the main music magazine in Canada. There is a write-up about it here by Library and Archives Canada.
 * FN 49: Is KQED reliable?
 * KQED has been cited in books by Cambridge University Press, ABC-Clio, Taylor & Francis

And that should be all the points I have. So, first reviewer has done all his points, now address the ones I have put out so far, and wait for the next reviewer to come by and review it.
 * does everything look ok now? Heartfox (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)