Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive3


 * 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 16:37, 24 January 2012.

The Emancipation of Mimi

 * Nominator(s): CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The last two nominations ended prematurely, due to my extended absence. This time I'm in it until the article has earned the little bronze star. Thanks everyone :) CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP Comments
 * No dab links needed to be fixed. Looks good.
 * In Songs and lyrics, why is "'I gotta shake you off / Just like a Calgon commercial'" in single quotation marks? The Manual of style asks for double quotes.
 * Check for WP:OVERLINKing: Gospel music, Get Your Number, We Belong Together, Shake It Off, Say Somethin', VH1, The New York Times, Jon Pareles and PopMatters are linked more than once in the article body. I suggest going into edit mode and searching for these as some are piped with different names.
 * Why is "Other charting songs" not a level 3 header?
 * I do not believe iTunes--a media player software--publishes the iTunes Store--a music retailer. Wouldn't it be Apple Inc.?
 * FN 35–40: Amazon.com publishes its own site; the work and publisher are the same. For international sites, you would say for example "Amazon.ca" or "Amazon.de" instead of "Amazon.com". You can also specify in brackets the country of the site instead: "Amazon.com (US)", "Amazon.com (Canada)", etc,
 * Based on your choice of consistency, works and publishers should be linked on first occurence: FN 41 needs linking and FN 60 does not.
 * FN 89 is apparently dead per Checklinks.
 * FN 133: Is contactmusic.com good for FA?
 * Yes, it can unless there are used o sourced extraordinary claims. Nikki does not question its use. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my comments in good faith and feel free to reply in you feel some are wrong and unreasonable. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FN 164: Should we specify that a source is in English on an English encyclopedia?
 * "Inc" and "Co." should be omitted in publisher names in "Nielsen Business Media, Inc", "Herald Media Inc." and "Tennessee Valley Printing Co., Inc" per documentation of Citation.
 * FN 19 and FN 84 both wikilink the work (Chicago Tribune) and publisher (Tribune Company). Check consistency in wikilinking.
 * FN 61: Link BBC News and BBC.
 * Absolutely! Thanks for stopping by. I addressed all of your points.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work Nathan. Further concerns:
 * Quotations needs inline citation, even if they are in the lead ("comeback", "party record").
 * VH1 is still linked twice, once in the form of "Save the Music".
 * Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, we use the abbreviations for the music organizations (RIAA, ARIA, etc.) for the Singles charts certifications, not the country's abbreviations (US, CAN, etc.).
 * For the album certifications, you have a header that says "(Sales thresholds)", yet they are not specified in the cells. You just have the certification. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed one. All points have been addressed. I will take a look at the prose sometime soon. :-) — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Thanks :D-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me

Orane has raised excellent points below and you've done a great job responding to them! The prose does look a little rough in certain areas; I decided to have a look at the lead of the article, and this is what I found: This is a little worrying for the lead, but I don't feel that I should Oppose without having a good look at the rest of the article. I think you've done an excellent job. I'm just being picky here and trying to get the best out of this article. If you can give it a nice good copy edit, it will satisfy the 1a criterion of WIAFA. Thank you. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Emancipation of Mimi is the tenth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, released in the United States on April 12, 2005 through Island Records."
 * (1) She is not a singer-songwriter, which is a profession dedicated to a completely different style, not necessarily those who write and record their own songs. She's a singer and a songwriter, but not a singer-songwriter.
 * (2) Something needs to be delineated here. It reads is if Carey was released in the U.S., not the album. Maybe put a "and was released" in there.
 * Hey WP. So thanks for coming back. I'm not sure I completely agree with some of your posts, so let me try and respond to each one individually so this is done as smoothly as possible :) #1). I fixed that one. #2). I'm not sure I really find this problematic. I think it's kind of obvious that we are talking about her album, not the singer herself.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Emancipation of Mimi was considered Carey's "comeback album"[1] by music critics and became her highest-selling release in almost a decade." – Is it me, or is the word "became" a bit redundant here, when "considered" does the job?
 * Again, I don't see an issue with this one. It was considered her come-back album not just because of the album's strong sales, but also because of its critical accomplishments. So what the sentence reads is exactly what I mean. It was considered a come-back release due to its strong critical reaction, and became (after a year of its release) Carey strongest seller in years.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "the majority of" is merely a fancy way to write "most (of)".
 * So why write it in simpler form? I think honestly think either way works.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In most context, you can do without the word "also", which adds no meaning to a sentence usually, like here: "... most of which also appear as featured guests on various tracks."
 * I think the tense needs to be revised. When you generally describe the contents of a song or album you use present tense. However, what critics say are written in past tense. So you would say "The album reveals a more intimate side" and "the album showcases ...". However, you would still say "Critics noted" instead of "Critics note".
 * I did write noted.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "commercial setback" is a confusing one and it will be unclear to the average reader what you are talking about.
 * Do you really find this problematic? I think its simple enough.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Think redundancy, some expressions are usually too vague for them to even be in a sentence, like "a variety of".: "... the album encompassed a variety of dance-oriented and uptempo styles that were in keeping with its celebratory aesthetics." Sometimes, the expression helps to be there, but is a fancy way to write "various".
 * Not sure I follow.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, "celebrity aesthetics" may be another confusing pair of words that your average Wikipedia reader will be unsure of.
 * It says "celebratory" :) Hmm, WP, I don't think there is a rule to use only easy wording. Wikipedia (especially on FA needs to read like a professional article, not something based on 8th grade linguistics.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "... as many critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years." – The clause could do without the word "many" unless you really mean a lot of critics, which is unlikely.
 * A bit week for inclusion in the lead: "They had questioned Carey's vocal abilities on Charmbracelet, in which they found her voice to be airy, thin, and damaged." The lead must be focused on TEOM.
 * I understand your point, but it is only a sentence that works as a sharp contrast to TEOM.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The album debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 with opening week sales of 404,000 copies, the highest first-week sales of Carey's career at the time." – In case you decide to keep the sentence above, you have to disambiguate which album is "The album". Also, I feel as discussing exact opening sales in the lead is a a bit too much detail, even if they were her highest. The fact that it debuted at No. 1 is enough.
 * I really don't think readers are going to be puzzled when reading this. It is obvious we are talking about Mimi and its accomplishments. Also, I've seen opening sales mentioned in several promoted album articles, even when they aren't "highest" opening sales.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, has their been any update on the sales after April 2008?
 * Not that I have been able to find. I always try to keep them updated.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "'We Belong Together', the album's second release, topped the singles chart in the United States, where it accumulated 14 total weeks at number one, and was later named 'song of the decade' by Billboard." – For an album article lead, this is probably digressing a bit too much. And albums do not release singles. I think this can be tightened: "'We Belong Together', the second single, accumulated 14 total weeks at number one in the United States, and was later named "song of the decade" by Billboard." The song of the decade thing might need a citation.
 * I fixed this one. However, I don't think a citation is necessary. It is not a quote and can be easily found in the article's body.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken a good look at the rest of the article, but the immense size of some paragraphs jumps out on me, particularly in the Songs and lyrics, Promotion, Reviews, and Commercial performance. The mind can only process so much information, and splitting the paragraphs will give the brains a break and continue reading again. It's hard to tell what the size of a paragraph should be, but once as a reader you feel like you are a bit lost in one, it's time to split it. Paragraphs should be just long enough for he reader to easily gather the main idea that is being discussed. Not too short, else they will be left hanging.
 * I have responded to several of your points. Please take a look so you can understand my point of view on them. Also, you seem to be pointing out too many opinionated things and not actual errors. However, I will do my best to work them all out. Also, I don't feel can wittle down the sections any more without cropping important information. Remember, without the photos, the paragraphs would look much smaller.-- CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be reasonable to Oppose based on such comments, so I didn't. Thank you for your honesty and I understand very well why you may think my comments are opinionated, but honestly, they aren't. They are in every effort to try and make the prose compelling, professional, even brilliant. This can be done by tightening it. That's why I feel that "a variety of" and "the majority of" are very loose and redundant when the same can be expressed in "various" or "most". Actually, this essay by Tony1 discusses this nicely, disregarding "misplaced formality" like "upon", "within", "multiple", and "majority","prior to", all of which are better off written as "on", "in", "many" and "most". I didn't raise "celebratory aesthetics" and "commercial setback" just for the sake of it. I actually do not know what these phrases mean. It has to be written clear and in plain English. Regarding the sentence abou Charbracelets reception in contrast with TEOMs, I do think a simple "... as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years and an improvement from Charmbracelet." suffices. So only two concerns, lead may be over-detailed (this can be arguable) and prose may need copy editing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very well written article. Understand that my comments are for the best. My hopes for this FAC are just as strong as yours. :) — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

*Added to the above comments about the references,
 * Comments by Jivesh
 * FN 44, link The Official Charts Company
 * FN 45 (and similar ones from Hung Medien), I know that it is consistency which matter but I have seen editors arguing that we should write Lescharts.com. Hung Medien or Australian-charts.com. Hung Medien - Do you get my point?
 * I forgot to reply. Jivesh, while I do understand what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with this method. It looks messy to me :S-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. It does not matter. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

*FN 47, unlink Tribune Company
 * FN 53, is it really British Phonographic Industry?
 * FN 62 & FN 84 & FN 120 contain over-linking of both work and publisher
 * FN 99 contains over-linking of FOX News

I will leave more comments later. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All done buddy :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * May I suggest a copyedit for the article. There are certain awkward phrases that jump out at me throughout the article, and an entire section that would work best if it were reorganized. A few examples:
 * "Critics called considered it her "comeback album".[1]" That's the third sentence in the article. Not only does it have a stray word, the sentence itself sounds jarring since it's constructed as a stand alone sentence. I think it would sound better if it were a clause to a longer sentence.
 * "A number of artists are attributed with writing and production credits, including Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright. Most of these artists also appear as featured guests on various tracks." It's probably just me, but this sentence sounds awkward. And, is it that notable to be placed in the very first paragraph? Why not third or fourth paragraph. Use the lead paragraph to establish the tone as to why the article was so great.
 * "Reid felt that the album's subtle production and live vocals made the record sound more authentic, whereas on several of Carey's sophomoric efforts, he head the singer's voice, but not necessarily her spirit." There's an incorrect spelling in there. See if you can spot it =) Also, some words are very ambiguous. You said that Read appreciated the "subtle" production. How was the production subtle? The inline citation does not support this. Also, what exactly is a "sophomoric effort"?
 * "The Emancipation of Mimi included a variety of tempos and genres not found on her previous release". A bit carried away, I think. I'd say she explored different aspects of the same genre. But would you really say that these genres that she explored were absent from all of her previous releases?
 * "While most tracks deduce their instrumentation from live bands and musical instruments". Deduce is an awkward word choice here.
 * "jazz-influenced gospel ballad "Fly Like a Bird". One of my fav songs ever. Don't remember it being jazzy. Source doesn't support this either.
 * "The song features a recording of Carey's deceased pastor". Try "now deceased" pastor. or just omit the fact that he's dead.
 * "In the song, the protagonist comes on to a love interest with the line" Come on is colloquial. She makes sexual advances to, she tempts, she allures, she entices... anything else.
 * "Being so, Carey opted to record the majority of the album live". "Being so" is a bit awkward.
 * "felt that the album followed a formula that was obvious on "Shake It Off"--a formula that was most apparent on "Shake It Off?
 * "He commented that in the strong and belted songs such as "Fly Like a Bird" and "I Wish You Knew" a strong and belted song? what is a strong song?
 * "Carey intended for the album to feature a rawer sound than some of her previous releases". I'm not sure rawer is a word. And if it is, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.


 * The main issue that I'm having with the writing and recording section is that, again, it's too general. I get no impression of what she did with the individual songs. But let's say I overlook that. You don't necessarily have to do it my way. But, the section starts off rather awkwardly: "By November 2004, Carey had already recorded several songs for the album." Huh? I thought this section was supposed to tell me about these songs that she recorded up to November 2004. Yet, it starts off telling me that she had already done it. When did she do it? How? Where? With whom? Her answer to the question "What was the writing process with this album" found here gives more info that that entire section of this article.
 * If I'm being completely honest, I'd say that the article isn't completely ready. Close, but not quite there yet. Oran e   (talk)  09:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All done and more buddy :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Penguin raised some nice comments, many of which I agree with. And as usual, you can embrace or reject at will.
 * It's a relatively minor issue, but this sentence trouble me: "Following the relatively poor critical and commercial reception to her albums Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002), The Emancipation of Mimi was considered Carey's "comeback album"[1] by music critics and became her highest-selling release in almost a decade." Would it be better to say "Following the relatively poor critical and commercial reception to her albums Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002), The Emancipation of Mimi became her highest-selling release in almost a decade, and was considered Carey's "comeback album" by music critics." I think this way is best because it is syntactically and logically straightforward: "previous failures-->best-selling in a decade-[therefore]->comeback album", rather than "previous failure-[became]->comeback album-[and was also]->best-selling in a decade".
 * "Throughout 2004, the singer co-wrote and produced the majority of the album alongside several songwriters and record producers, such as Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright; most of which appear as featured guests on various tracks."--incorrect use of semi-colon. Maybe you can try "In composing the album, the singer collaborated with several songwriters and producers throughout 2004, including Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista, Nelly, Pharrell Williams and James "Big Jim" Wright, many of whom also appeared as featured guests on some many of the album's songs."-- or some variation of this sentence.
 * "... received generally positive reviews, as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years. They had questioned Carey's vocal abilities on Charmbracelet, in which they found her voice to be airy, thin, and damaged." --may be tweaked to "... received generally positive reviews, as critics called it Carey's best vocal performance in years, following criticism of her voice as being thin and damaged on her previous release." --just something simple-- the "thin, air and damaged" thing disrupts the rhythm of the prose.
 * "o promote the album, Carey performed at the 48th annual Grammy Awards, where she received the only standing ovation of the evening, and at the 33rd American Music Awards." Question: do you really think the fact that she received a standing ovation for a performance at an awards ceremony is notable enough to be placed in the introduction of an encyclopedia article about the album?
 * "but not something that would re-capture audiences around the world and re-establish her popularity as in the 1990s"-- as in the 1990s is awkward.
 * "Many took notice of Carey's more airy and light vocals"-- If I know my comparatives and superlatives, it's airy, airier, airiest and not airy, more airy, most airy. :P
 * "claimed she was no longer capable of the same degree of vocal prowess she had exhibited earlier in her career"-- claimed she now lacked the vocal prowess of her earlier releases... or something like that. My point is that the sentence is verbose.
 * "Three years later, with the release of The Emancipation of Mimi, Carey's critical and commercial popularity surged again;" How about saying something like "TEOM saw the resurgence of her critical and commercial popularity"...?
 * "Critic Andre Meyer of CBS News thought the material was "stronger", and called the album a move in Carey's long-term plan for pop domination, while giving off the "jittery R&B vibe that made Destiny’s Child so potent."[5] He went on to say that "Mariah has returned to singing – while still pushing the limits of good taste with her barely there outfits."[5]" why not in the critical reception section?
 * "Throughout 2004, Carey had already begun writing and producing material for the album." Stop saying she already began lol. Just say that "Carey began writing and producing the album in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it is". Because whenever you begin the section saying she had already written it, you imply a glaring omission from your article.

Still small errors like those pointed out above. Here's a suggestion: print out sections of the article, read it out loud (listening to the flow and the musicality of the prose), and edit it with a pencil. Trim what you don't need, and try to make the wording as precise as you can. I won't oppose the article, because it's really good. These are just comments to get my support vote, and can be sorted out in a really short time. Good luck. Oran e  (talk)  23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Media review —  Andrew s talk  06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * File:TEOM cover.jpg - FUR and quality are OK
 * File:Mariah Carey - It's Like That.ogg and File:Mariah Carey - We Belong Together.ogg - FURs and quality are OK, but the captions don't sit quite right with me. The use of "This clip" for ILT and the first 'sentence' not being a grammatically complete sentence in the second caption feel a bit awkward.
 * File:Mariah Carey GMA Fly Like a Bird 2005.jpg - CC from Flickr. Please don't force the huge size of the image. Users can set different thumbnail sizes in their preferences.
 * File:Mariah Carey in August 2006.jpg - CC from Flickr
 * File:Grammy.jpg - CC from Flickr, but I wonder whether it is needed in an article about an album (not a Grammy-related article), especially when the Grammy photographed was awarded to another musician.

Query: Is the nominator still working on this article? I don't see any movement in almost two weeks, and I don't want to waste my time reviewing if interest has been lost in the nomination. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Closing note: this nomination has been up for over three weeks and has received no Support. It will have a better chance by coming back to FAC in a few weeks, after previous commenters here are satisfied. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


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