Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/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 Ucucha 01:17, 11 September 2011.

The Emancipation of Mimi

 * Nominator(s): CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the Featured Article criteria. The article has received a pretty extensive Peer Review, where I got a lot of help from my peers; Thanks guys! The article also received a pretty thorough copy-edit from the GOCE. I think you'll be pleased with its current condition. Thanks to everyone for commenting!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When including multiple footnotes consecutively, use numerical order (ie. [1][2][3] instead of [2][1][3])
 * Arranged
 * You've got an [H] in there that doesn't seem to link to anything
 * Result of a careless copy and paste job by yours truly
 * Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens
 * I'm actually not completely sure about this one. Ranges inside the references, or in the text? Can you give me one example?
 * Well, both, but I only checked references. One example would be "Bands A-Z". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I believe I added them to all the ranges
 * What's with the triple parentheses in some of the allmusic refs?
 * Again, not sure why that was like that. Fixed
 * FN 80: Lerner Newspapers is the chain, not the newspaper name
 * Switched both work and publisher
 * FN 110, 129: don't italicize publisher name
 * Fixed
 * FN 159: is an album catalogue number available for this source? Also, why are you using two different citation templates for the two album liner citations?
 * I am having trouble with this one as well. I guess I can place a catalog number from the album. For the next part, I don't really follow
 * There are two citations to liner notes - one using "cite music release notes", the other "cite album-notes". Assuming those are both actually liner notes, they should use the same template. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now they match
 * "(in Spanish). Portuguese Albums Chart." - that seems odd, are you sure? Looking at the source, most of the text seems to be in either English or German, strangely enough
 * Yes, what I don't understand is why I even wrote Spanish. If anything it should have been Portuguese. Fixed
 * Foreign-language sources should be consistently identified as such
 * From what I checked (I believe all of them) there is a language parameter (proper ones) on the foreign language sources
 * I think you missed one in Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it!
 * Why use templates for footnotes but  for Works cited?
 * Fixed

Thanks for the comments Nikki. I have addressed all of them, except two for which I asked for further explanation.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I now think everything has been addressed Nikki. On a side note, I had to place "Citation" again for the "Works Cited" section because when you added "Cite book", the links broke :S I don't know why, but now as they were, they now work. Thanks for the tips and comments! :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   11:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a review perhaps on Saturday. Ciao! --Efe (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick review
 * n+ing phrasing such as "with some critics calling it Carey's return to vocal form" This was already pointed out during the PR but it seems it was not addressed. Try User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for the exercises.
 * Vague terms like "vocal form"
 * POVish terms like "high-profile"
 * Thanks :) That would be awesome! I made these quick fixes. I guess I overlooked them in the PR :S-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

--Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Whose oppose is this? Please sign.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Forgot. --Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly huge so I have to give my comments one at a time. And in this fashion:
 * 1(a) well-written: for the lead
 * Although it shared similar vocal production to her previous works I think that should be "with", as in shared with, not share to. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Don't know why I didn't see thins before.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  and an inclination towards her signature pop and R&B ballads, the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics Perhaps you delimit her ballads by removing pop and R&B, because the sentence says later that the album encompasses a variety of dance-oriented and uptempos... Pop and R&Bs could be uptempos too. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In contrast to the pop and adult contemporary music styles that framed her previous releases, the album showcased a wider range of genres and explored a variety of R&B-related styles I thought R&B was predominant with her previous releases. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I switched it a little to make more sense.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the album showcased a wider range of genres and explored a variety of R&B-related styles, including 1970s retro gospel and soul, as well as R&B and hip hop. Not clear. Why is R&B repeated? --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The album debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200, with opening week sales of 404,000 copies, That first comma is superfluous. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To date, The Emancipation of Mimi has sold over 12 million copies worldwide. This was already mentioned during the PR. To date is out of date. Better use specific date of publication of the source, or whatever the source says. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Specified.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it achieved top-five places in several European countries and was later named "song of the decade" by Billboard Song of the decade don't have quotation marks. The sentence also doesn't cohere. Billboard did not it sone of the decade because it achieved top-five placed in several European countries. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-arranged.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 2(b) appropriate structure:
 * The structure of the whole article has no cohesion. For instance, why is Promotion put after Award and Recognitions. And why is the section Ultra Platinum Edition follow Singles? --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There supposed to be subsections here. For instance, you may put Awards and nominations and Critical reception under one section. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I created a subsection called "Reviews". Its mighty huge. --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm bother by the sections Singles and Ultra Platinum Edition sections. They break the flow of the structure. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So we already said to placing the "Awards" under "Critical", so where do you think "Singles" and "UPE" should go? I'm all ears.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * UPE could actually be under a section called "Release". I'm (a bit) bothered by how the section called "Singles" is presented. Its supposed to appear as promotional tool for the album. But then, the way its written, it sort of disconnect with the rest of the article (which is about the album). --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that Grammy Awards should be part of her promotional duties for the album --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't? Where should it be places then?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You already have "Awards and Nomination". --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That table which contains one item, End of decade charts, should have been merged with the prose. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why this one should be an issue. Its not like the whole table is for it. It's just a little extension.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its just a personal taste. For me, when its only a single entry in a table, then better incorporate it in the list. The reason why we provide lists and tables is for a neater presentation of the facts without having to mention them in the prose. --Efe (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Media
 * There three audio samples which some of them might be dispensable in keeping with our policy. I'll rationalize it later. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have removed one.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition of that picture in the Commercial Performance section is irrelevant. Regardless if its free or fair-use, its still irrelevant. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh uh. Sorry. I forgot to say you might want to add it somewhere relevant. --Efe (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Removed one audio file and moved the photo to the singles section. I think this is what you mean.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still digesting this article. So huge, but great. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Efe. I believe I have addressed your concerns, however, please clarify on a few points.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This instance signifies that the articles fails to comply with criterion no. 4 (Length). --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Organization
 * Background.
 * There might be an attempt at establishing that Mariah did have setbacks, but that section is circuitous and contains facts that actually are dispensable.
 * For instance, and according to some, released her "inner sex kitten" on Butterfly (1997), her first album commissioned following their separation. Why the quotation? What is its relevance?
 * With her next release, Rainbow (1999), Carey continued to infuse more R&B influences into her music, notably with "Heartbreaker", the lead single from the album, which features Carey's farthest reach into hip-hop territory to that point. I understand there was a radical change in her "music" and "voice", but then again, you started the whole story with "Carey had experienced a year of critical, commercial, and personal troubles". I can see facts for this are mentioned somewhere in the section. --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When comparing Carey's new style to younger pop singer Christina Aguilera's "Dirrty", Andre Meyer of CBC News said "Mariah may be cheapening herself, but she’s doing it with a knowing wink." Some random quoted opinion from somewhere outside Mariah's country. --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Though her singing style was significantly different and had critics divided, Cinquemani wrote, "Carey's vocal delivery and her willingness to experiment with it helped define the album, so it's only appropriate that its title track is the first of many to showcase Carey's much-debated "whisper voice". But it could be the most important of 'Butterflys changes, as it marks the first time that Mariah the vocalist seems consistently real."'' The first part is fine "her singing style", but then again the quoted opinion seems too much. Why give weight to his opinion? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversy involving Mottola and executive Benny Medina took place during 1999, as they used several productions Carey had written and been involved with on songs for Jennifer Lopez. What about the controversy? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In summary, my oppose is based on the following criteria which are not yet satisfied by the current status of the article. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewers, pls follow FAC instructions; is this a second oppose? And there is excess bolding throughout this FAC making it hard to read. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry Sandy. Just one oppose. I have "debold" it now. --Efe (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1a. Well written.
 * Carey had written and been involved with on songs for Jennifer Lopez. What other involved she might had? And "on songs for" is a bit sloppy. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carey's 2001 film Glitter was panned by movie critics The context is already there. Unless there were a substantial number of music critics who went overboard by serving Mariah a comment on that particular movie of hers. But nevertheless, the context is there. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * and has sold over two million units globally Maybe the adverb here is too far from the verb. I suggest using worldwide. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They paid her $50 million to part ways. Carey checked into a hospital in Connecticut following a controversial appearance on Total Request Live There is an abrupt change in topic. Transition might be a better solution. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * appearance on Total Request Live, in which she gave in or during?
 * and demonstrated what was considered by the media as "erratic behavior". Perhaps "and demonstrated a behavior that was considered by the media as "erratic" ?
 * using some of the experiences she had gone through in recent months as material. I am not sure if this will be affected in the inevitable cleanup of this article, but on a note, this is unclear. Perhaps you would like to say she used it as inspiration for her material. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * re-establish her popularity throughout the 1990s Perhaps you add something like "attained". At present, it looks like she was gearing up to establish her popularity during that time. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * and thus the title meant she was letting her guard down You mean the usage of the title? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're referring to the usage of the title in the album, not really the title itself. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * She felt it marked Carey finally "shaking" off the "shackles" of Mottola. You mean the "shackles" that Mottola "imposed" upon Mariah? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. MOS issues
 * What is carping? Link anyone? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * notably with "Heartbreaker", the lead single from the album delink lead single. That's a common term. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * in which she began using a "whisper register" link anyone? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * earned less than eight million dollars at the box office. as opposed to unprecedented $100 million dollar the latter even redundant. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carey left troubling messages on her website  as opposed to In a letter she posted on her official site
 * Capri, Italy, It is too much if we link that? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "post-breakdown, post-Glitter, comeback." Italics? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While the DJ feels that Carey has a solid core audience, "her relevance to the general public hinges on whether she makes music that has to be heard." Placement of punctuation marks. The guide is here: WP:MOS. Personally, I would enclose a period if the quoted material is a complete sentence. Otherwise, it should be put after the closing quotation mark. There's so much throughout the article. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Following this recording session, "Shake It Off" was briefly selected as the album's lead single, replacing the originally-planned "Say Somethin'".[12])  Parenthetical. Would it be possible to make this as a footnote?


 * 2b. Appropriate structure.
 * As above, the sections "Singles" and "UPE" are misplaced. Already explained. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. Length. Soe
 * As stated above, the article has a lot of unnecessary details. Aside from the foregoing, here are some examples:
 * Overly detailed background. Explained above. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Promotion for the song began at the 2005 Echo Awards, where Carey opened the ceremony with a live rendition of the song.[26] She appeared on stage in a short pink costume and sang alongside several paired male and female dancers, all dressed in elegant evening ensembles. What's the significance of that? --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two days later, on April 8, a similarly choreographed pre-taped performance of the song aired on the German game show Wetten, dass..?, having been filmed at the Velodrom on March 19. Seems like a collection of performances. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After completing another constume change, Carey, joined by her background singer Fancruft. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She wore a long blue evening gown, and appeared with a four piece band and three background vocalists. Trivial. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On June 4 she performed at the annual Macy's Fourth of July Parade, singing "America the Beautiful", "We Belong Together", and "It's Like That". Don't have to track all of her performances by date. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the tragic events involving Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast throughout August 2005, she was featured as a headlining performer at the Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast concert charity benefit.[47] Carey, wearing a non-formal ensemble of a pink tank-top and blue jeans, performed "Fly Like a Bird" alongside a large church choir.[ Might be a nice, but then again the trivial info (bold). --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After performing "Shake It Off" and the official remix version of "We Belong Together", Carey made her way into the shallow pool, followed by Dupri and the back-up dancers. Same thing. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty amazing how the editor, by the name of Peter (is that your real name buddy?), put up so much effort in researching and organizing this article. But then again, the FA Criteria must prevail. (Note to Sandy) I might not be able to respond during the weekdays, but my oppose should remain an oppose. The editor though is quick in responding to the comments. Thank you and good luck. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hehe, thank you :) No, I'm Nathan :P Look at my signature lol. I just did a massive change to the article, removing tons of those insignificant details from the "Promotion" section and removed a lot of "background" info that didn't flow. I didn't comment on each point, so whenever you have time and are back, please take a look at all of them :D. Thanks for the thorough review Mark!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Left comment on my talk page. Sorry. Got no enough time to re-review the entire article. Until next weekend! --Efe (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As promised to Nathan, I am doing a re-review. While most of my explicitly mentioned "standouts" have been addressed, still the article doesn't meet the FA Criteria. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1a. Well written. Loose and unclear phrasing and/or grammatical errors like " old songs from her catalog", "her previous personal and commercial setbacks", "The Emancipation of Mimi received a generally positive reception", "Carey's voice seems "damaged" in comparison to [with] her "glory years" in the 1990s", "the longest stay of the 2000s decade ", "the song was name[d] the", "which represents the twenty-five songs below the Hot 100's number 100 position"; this one "After Carey received the Bambi denoting shipments of over 100,000 units of", is Bambi Awards based on shipments? --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected all of these and more.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1c. Well-researched. Strong claims such as "The Emancipation of Mimi was heralded as Carey's "return to form", her most expressive and original album of the 2000s." must have a direct inline citation. There are also original researches such as "The Emancipation of Mimi was released in Mexico on March 30, 2005, and was the first country to receive shipments of the album." There is an inline citation, but I cannot find the info there. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as above.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1d. Neutral.
 * Well written lead, but might have been written based on the knowledge of the editor on the subject and the artist in question. There are summaries and point of views that are not supported or discussed heavily in the body: "Although it shared similar vocal production with her previous works and an inclination towards her signature ballads, the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics." Such applies to "A number of artists had pivotal roles in the album's writing and production", whose "pivotal roles" were not even discussed in the body. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As per your suggestion on L.A.M.B, I have re-done the "Music and Lyrics" section. I have provided two parts. A "Structure and style" and "Songs and lyrics". The former goes into detail on the lead information that was not found in the article before.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Undue weight given to critical reviews. "The song received mostly positive reviews from music critics, who declared it as "catchy and infectious"—a song that would re-ignite Carey's popularity among MTV viewers." A general review that is supported by only two inline citations, and a quoted material that is supposedly quoted from music critics, but seems supported by only one inline citation. Such is applicable also to this: "Critics praised the song's strong vocals towards the climax, and with it claimed "The Voice has indeed returned."[87]" which is only supported by one inline citation. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added more critics in some instances, and in others, am more specific with who is quoting such information.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1b. Comprehensive. The failure to discuss the foregoing (first para under "Neutral") makes the article less comprehensive. This attempt "The Emancipation of Mimi was heralded as Carey's "return to form", her most expressive and original album of the 2000s." at the beginning of the section called Music and Lyrics are not even expounded. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done above.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. MOS compliant Misuse of italics such as "Ultra Platinum Edition" and terms that should have been in italics like "in Billboard history", "'Mimi' deftly" and "He continued, "on 'The Emancipation of Mimi,' she"; inconsistencies like ""We Belong Together" on the Late Show with David Letterman (May 5), The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (May 11), and The Ellen DeGeneres Show on May 13", "chart topper in the US" as opposed to "chart topper in the United States", and "as well as Best Female R&B Vocal Performance and Best R&B Song" as opposed to "nominated for "Best Female R&B Vocal Performance" and "Best R&B Song"" (use of quotation marks); and unlinked signs/acronyms such as "$95 to $150 USD" --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of this and more. Only one disagreement. Why should UPE not be in italics? It is the album's title.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Isn't that like those marketing blitz that music industries go about by releasing more than one versions such as Ultra Platinum Edition, Platinum Edition, Deluxe Edition, etc etc? Appreciate supporting source. --Efe (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not yet done. There are still inconsistent placement of quotation marks throughout. See [{WP:LQ]] for reference and guidance. --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. Media. What makes this file fair use? File:Mariah Carey - It's Like That.ogg. Of this: File:Mariah Carey - We Belong Together.ogg? The latter has a caption that reads in part: "The sample highlights Carey's acclaimed vocal performance throughout the climax.." Not discussed or supported in the body. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added better rational. Also, the "acclaimed vocals" are found in the "Singles" section and is now more prominent.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @ first file. What about its strong bassline? I can see at least one critic mentioned it, but what it? Is that important? --Efe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This one too is not yet done. There a caption, but what now? Is it significant? Is it important? --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. Length. The article still needs more pruning. This is already pointed out in my previous comments, and also by other editors. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trimmed down the Promotion section even more. I honestly find the article to be the very basics, and do not see where it can possibly be pruned down even more without removing vital information.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How come this is vital: "Two days later, on April 8, a similarly choreographed pre-taped performance of the song aired on the German game show Wetten, dass..?."? --Efe (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Random information like "The performance earned the night's only standing ovation, prompting Teri Hatcher, who was presenting the next award, to exclaim, "It's like we've all just been saved!"[87] Carey's performance earned rave reviews from critics.[88][89][90]" I think that part "The performance earned the night's only standing ovation" would do. That "rave reviews" are leaning toward POV. --Efe (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still sections that need trimming. --Efe (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has a lot issues than I previously thought. My oppose remain as is. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In many of your references you have the |work= parameter and use the italicize quotes at the same time. The |work= parameter automatically italicizes what ever is entered there. Using additional italic commands renders the entry to not appear italicized. I tried to fix this with AWB but AWB kept choking on it. While you're fixing the italic problems it would be a good idea to delink some of the information to cut down on wikilinking. Likely the publisher names can be unlinked. Brad (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2c comments
 * Hi Brad. Yes, that is intentional. While the work parameter automatically italicizes all works, only printed sources need to be in italics. Therefore, the works that should not be italicized, are place in italics so the work parameter does not automatically do it (Hope I didn't lose you there). I don't see the issue there, most "works" aren't meant to be italics, so the ones that are not supposed to are like that. As for the linking. Brad, Nikki and I made sure that every work and publisher in the references are linked only the first time, so I don't see an issue of over-linking. Its first time only. Thanks for the comments!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Nathan. One way to circumvent the problem is to take the info that you would normally put in the work parameter, and place it in the publisher parameter, and leave the work field blank. For example, you'd have "|work=|publisher=CNN Online. Turner Broadcasting Company|". Note the period between the work (CNN Online) and the publisher (TBC). It's formatted the same way the template would do it. That way, you don't have to try and manipulate the template, and, since the info in publisher is not italicized, it's easier to work with. That's how a number of articles have it done. Oran e   (talk)  08:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up Orane. I fixed that issue throughout.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from THR
 * I don't know what the "Background" section has to do with this article. It seems like it belongs in the Charmbracelet article instead, as every event described happened before that album's release. I think the "Titling and development" section is the real "Background", and this first one could be cut entirely.
 * It belongs to this article. Nathan wants to establish here that Mimi is Carey's real comeback album. Its just that that part needs more emphasis. --Efe (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark. Yes, in order to emphasize the commercial and critical accomplishments of the album, I had to give some insight on the events prior to its recording. It was much larger before, Mark helped me trim it down a lot.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even now that I know the intent behind this inclusion, I still don't see what insight it provides. The critics were looking for a "comeback album" – whatever that is – and in their eyes Carey didn't succeed on her first attempt, but here she did. Is this how Carey saw it, too? If so, how did the first attempt inform the second? We aren't told. If this "comeback" business was only coming from the critics, that can be covered in the "Critical reception" section.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Marketing and Promotion" subsection (by the way, which of the details would be considered marketing and which promotion?) is heavy on details that make me forget I'm reading an article about an album. Do we need to know what she was wearing for every performance? Do we need to know that Eva Longoria introduced her? Do we need to know where the MTV Video Music Awards took place? Do we need to know that her performance at the Super Bowl halftime show was announced beforehand, or is it enough to just say she performed? Do we need to know what Teri Hatcher said? Et cetera...
 * Agreed. I removed all of that, except for the Grammy part, because it was notably the only standing ovation of the evening, so I have to give that sentence a little life.


 * The "Singles" subsection would probably benefit from being cut down to half its length. I know you've covered all those details in the respective song articles.
 * Whittled down substantially.


 * You might change "Other Notable Songs" to "Other charting songs", as what's notable depends on your POV
 * Done.
 * Okay, but don't capitalize every word in the heading.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The tour proved successful, with Carey playing to over 60,000 fans in the two stop in Tunis alone." – Just give us the numbers and let us decide whether they constitute success.
 * Done.
 * Now check for other instances of POV phrases.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Emancipation of Mimi became Carey's most commercially successful album...." – You might say "highest selling" or whatever, as "commercially successful" might not be interpreted the same way by everyone.
 * Done/


 * The Metacritic score was 64/100, but only one of the ratings in the infobox is lower than that. It would probably be good to swap out a couple for a more representative selection.
 * Added.


 * The "Release details" section seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a Beatles album that has been re-released multiple times with something different (format, mono/stereo, remastering, bonus tracks, artwork, etc.) to make each one interesting to collectors. The only thing different about them is the release dates, and that information would be better summarized in prose. Also, that prose should be part of the "Release" section, which oddly enough doesn't mention the release date(s). Example: "The album was first released in Mexico on March 30, 2005. It was released in most of Europe on April 4, then in the US and Japan on April 12."
 * I removed the box completely and wrote it out in prose.

I salute you for the obvious effort you put into this article, and I look forward to supporting the nomination.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the critics' comments in the "Music and lyrics" blur the focus of the section. I recommend retaining only the comments that actually particularize the musical/lyrical content and cutting the comments that appraise it – e.g. "features finger-snaps, kick drums, and a strong piano-driven melody" is great, "powerful vocals" is borderline and "the performance would re-establish Carey's reputation as a balladeer" belongs in the "Critical reception" section instead.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments THR! I appreciate it; yes a lot of work went into it :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trimmed down the "Music and lyrics" section and removed all "critical reception" of it. I think I've addressed all of your points THR, but I would really like to keep that small introductory paragraph. I think its really important to have as an introduction for this successful album. Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been evaluating the followup to this album at Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA1. One point that astounds me is the amount of content dedicated to presenting a Carey album discography and biography in the E%3DMC²_(Mariah_Carey_album) section. As of 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC), a quick scan at WP:GA showed the background sections for Music Box (Mariah Carey album)-2228 characters of readable prose, Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)-1724, Mariah Carey (album)-2451, Emotions (Mariah Carey album)-2960, Daydream (Mariah Carey album)-2079, Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album)-1051, Rainbow (Mariah Carey album)-1775, Glitter (soundtrack)-3672, and The Emancipation of Mimi-4270. In response to this the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) background was cut from 4058 characters to 2445. I think a similar reduction is in order here. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. I don't seem to follow on this issue. The "Background" section is only 294 words, whereas the "Titling and development" another 419. Now, compare that to E=MC2; 411 for "Background" and 418 for "Title and cover art". These two sections are very similar, and it happens to be that this one is 25% shorter, so I'm not sure where you're getting at. Thanks.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First off lets stay with the standard WP measure of prose length which is either bytes or characters, which are somewhat interchangeable. I prefer to focus on readable prose, which is also quite standard on WP. When I looked at Mimi, I had a brain freeze and was thinking it came after Mimi for a second making all that 2004 and 2005 stuff background.  However, I am just plain wrong.  Thanks for keeping the background reasonable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Not really going to review the article but I think the Singles should be a level 2 section. The reason is that the "Other charted songs" have nothing to do with the album's promotion because they weren't released. Second, don't say "officially released" because all singles are official. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


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