Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mariah Carey/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:54, 1 December 2007.

Review commentary

 * WPP:MUSIC and WP:MUSICIANS  notified. Gimmetrow 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Message left at Estraordinary Machine, Journalist and Reidlos

previous FAR


 * Copied from Talk:Mariah Carey

This page is poorly written. For instance, I see grammatical errors already in the opening paragraphs. As an example, the article says in the third paragraph, "... greatest artist of all-time." The dash does not belong there. At another point it says, "best selling singer." A dash IS needed here. Come on people, this is the opening section! How in the world did an article with such bad grammar end up with FA status?

Overall, I would characterize the writing as weak. For instance, the second sentence says: "Her debut was in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and she became the first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart." Sorry, but that sounds pretty awkward. Try this: “Under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of the singles from her first album top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart in 1990.”

I am just a scientist, and not a scholar of the English language. However, if these sentences sound strange to me, they probably sound a lot worse to people who can actually write. If I can find this number of bad sentences in the lead section alone, then I cannot image the state of decay that must exist toward the end. I further find it hard to believe that this article constitutes "the best that Wikipedia has to offer."

Yet another issue involves the sloppy citation method used. In many cases, no information on the source of the article is given whatsoever. Where are the names of dates, authors, etc. for so many of the references? Because so few of the sources are available as internet links, it is further difficult to get a feel for whether the sources are being cited accurately. Citation #4 also does not link properly. I clicked on it only to find an article about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize! The sloppy citation here is not acceptable at all for a Featured Article. What kind of message does it put out there? It is basically sending out the message that proper referencing does not matter.

Although I love Mariah Carey, this article is not written in a professional manner. In fact, the issue is so bad that I do not know how anyone is expected to take this article seriously. For instance, it is quite apparent that the page is not willing to honestly discuss any sort of criticism pertaining to the singer. Although the lead section alludes to issues that critics have had with her, the documentation is buried in a location that is nearly impossible to find in this disorganized article.

Another thing that would really benefit this article is an entire section devoted to "Criticism." In this section, people should be allowed to add negative reviews without any fear that the citations will be erased.

Here are some examples of criticism that I found right away with a quick Google:

1) Carey was voted by "The World" as the "worst singer of all time: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/carey%20named%20worst%20singer%20of%20all%20time_1034254

2) Carey also voted as one of the worst of all time by "Q." Here is the link:http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/osbourne%20carey%20and%20dion%20named%20worst%20singers%20ever_1023934.

My point here is that there is plenty of material for an entire criticism section. Furthermore, it would make the article more believable.

By the way, there is no reason to be ashamed of bad reviews. Everyone knows that a lot of critics are jealous morons. There is also a lot of sexism inherent in rock criticism. However, when you fail to incorporate these types of things into an encyclopedia article, the effect is generally to lose any readers who do not happen to be fans. This is especially true when you go out of your way to lavishly illustrate accomplishments and awards.

By the way, another way to look at this article is to compare it with a similar one that is much better. For instance, check out the Freddie Mercury page, which is only listed as a "B" article at the moment. However, note how easy it is to read, how clearly the references are cited and how honest it is with regard to criticism. Furthermore, although the Freddie Mercury page ranks around #300 in terms of the number of edits, we have never had any problems with vandalism nor have we ever had to lock the site up. The reason for this involves the large "Criticism and Controversy" section to which everyone is allowed to freely add. At no point has any attempt been made to get rid of it or edit it. However, it is my understanding that such an open policy is not practiced on this site.
 * Nominator, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that it's probably unorthodox to comment on the nominator, as opposed to the article itself, but I feel that in this occasion, I must. The editor seems only to have read the introduction, and assume that the article does not fit the criteria. His criticism is saturated with vague and general comments like "the article is bad," which gives us little to go on. Much of the cited information that the nominator provides are the result of vandalism, which have been removed ("... greatest artist of all-time" does not exist in the opening paragraph, nor in the rest of the article).
 * Also, there is no claim in the article that "Carey has sold more than any female artists," as the nominator states. Billboard magazine had listed her as the most successful artist of the 1990s in the U.S (which refers to her chart success), and this is documented at the end of the first paragraph of the article. The article even goes as far as to mention that Carey is the third best-selling artist in the U.S, "according to the RIAA".
 * Also, the page is practically ridden with criticisms of Carey's artistry, as found in the discussion of her albums throughout the article, and in the section "Artistry." Here are a few examples:
 * "...but TIME magazine lamented Carey's attempt at a mellower work: "[Music Box] seems perfunctory and almost passionless ... Carey could be a pop-soul great; instead she has once again settled for Salieri-like mediocrity."
 * "Critical reception of Merry Christmas was mixed, with All Music Guide calling it an "otherwise vanilla set ... pretensions to high opera on 'O Holy Night' and a horrid danceclub [sic] take on 'Joy to the World'."
 * "'After years of trading her signature flourishes for a radio-ready purr, [Carey]'s left with almost no presence at all.'"
 * "'The St. Louis Post-Dispatch dismissed it as "an absolute mess that'll go down as an annoying blemish on a career that, while not always critically heralded, was at least nearly consistently successful'."
 * "Film Guide called it a "vapid star vehicle for a pop singer with no visible acting ability", and The Village Voice observed: "When [Carey] tries for an emotion—any emotion—she looks as if she's lost her car keys." Glitter was a box office failure, and Carey earned a Razzie Award for her role."
 * "a review in NME labeled Carey "a purveyor of saccharine bilge like 'Hero', whose message seems wholesome enough: that if you vacate your mind of all intelligent thought, flutter your eyelashes and wish hard, sweet babies and honey will follow". Also that year she appeared on the first televised VH1 Divas benefit concert program, though her alleged prima donna behavior had already led many to consider her a diva."
 * Carey's voice has come under considerable scrutiny from critics who believe that she does not effectively communicate the message of her songs. Rolling Stone magazine said in 1992, "Carey has a remarkable vocal gift, but to date, unfortunately, her singing has been far more impressive than expressive ... at full speed her range is so superhuman that each excessive note erodes the believability of the lyric she is singing." The New York Daily News wrote that Carey's singing "is ultimately what does her in. For Carey, vocalizing is all about the performance, not the emotions that inspired it ... Does having a great voice automatically make you a great singer? Hardly." Some interpreted Carey's decision to utilise what she described as "breathy" vocals in some of her late 1990s and early 2000s work as a sign that her voice had begun to deteriorate, but she has maintained that it "has been here all along". An article in Vibe magazine indicated that Carey's singing style highlights weaknesses in other aspects of her music: "The impressiveness of her voice—as well as her tendency to oversing—make the blandness of her material all the more flagrant".
 * There is so much more that I can lift from the article. Please read the article first, before you comment on things like these. I agree that the prose could use some copy editing, but overall, this article is well-written.
 * We cannot include every criticism of Carey that one finds on the internet; the two sites that the nominator presented lists criticism that is already discussed&mdash; that Carey has more voice than soul. Oran e   (talk)  00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To add to Orane's points, the creation of a section titled "Criticism" would seem to me to be a textbook violation of Neutral point of view. Carey has been the subject of much criticism, yes, and as Orane has indicated, the article documents instances of such criticism frequently &mdash; it's more useful for the reader, I think, to have those arranged across the articles in the relevant sections (e.g. those pertaining to specific albums, periods of her career or aspects of her music) than collected into one section.
 * As the most visible part of the article, the lead section will be edited more frequently than other sections, so errors (both factual and grammatical) are going to creep in sooner or later, despite the efforts of those watching the article (including myself) &mdash; and I disagree with your comment about "some obscure biography that we will never be able to get our hands on", because the information needed to find a copy of the book is there if people need it. Regarding one of your suggestions for improvements to the grammar &mdash; you proposed, "Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of her first singles top the U.S. Billbroad Hot 100 Chart." Firstly, "all five of her first" isn't needed, because "her first five" conveys the same information in fewer words (and is in the article for this reason); secondly, "chart" should remain uncapitalised because it isn't a proper noun in this instance. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed to find that the one given here was an older version that did not contain all of my points. Please read everything that i wrote, Boab 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Full criticism was not posted: It did not contain issues with references and other issues

OK, I just wrote messages to two of the people above informing them that they in fact did not see all of my criticisms. What I did was to write a prelimary draft one night and then finish it up the next day. However, I was disappointed to find that someone had pasted that older version up there that was not finished. This older version did not include my issues with the sloppy citations and some other things. By the way, check out the Freddie Mercury page (which is currently a "B" at the moment) to see what proper citations should look like for a featured article. Boab 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Proper citations"? By whose standard? Just because you think that the citation method in "Freddy Mercury" is superior, that doesn't mean that this article should be delisted. This is mere stylistic difference.
 * Also, you stated that it was awkward to write, "Her debut was in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and she became the first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart" and suggested that we should write "Under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, Carey became the first recording artist to have all five of the singles from her first album top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart in 1990." However, your statement would convey the wrong information; Carey's first five singles went to number-one, but they were not all from her first album (i.e. four singles were from her first album, and her fifth #1 single was the first single from her second album).
 * I disagree with the inclusion of a criticism section. As already stated by User:Extraordinary Machine, criticism is discussed at the appropriate section in the article pertaining to the particular period of her career. Again, it's a stylistic difference. Please see the FAC criteria. Oran e   (talk)  06:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A failure to include authors, dates and souruces is not simply a "stylistic difference." On the contrary, it is an example of inadequate citing. Remember that this is a Featured Article. Keep in mind how few articles attain Featured Article status and what this should imply in terms of quality. On the other hand, look at references 53-55 at the moment (October 21, 2007). Do you see what I mean here? You need to fix this up if you want to call this a Featured Article.

By the way, I am pleased to see that someone has fixed up some of the grammatical errors and the awkward sentence in the intro. Now do this for the rest of the article. (By the way, look at the October 7th version to see how it read before my criticisms above. Just continue to follow my advice here if you want a nice article. Boab 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bobo, changing your own comments significantly after people have replied to them is frowned on &mdash; please see Talk page guidelines. After I modified the lead section, I copyedited the entire article &mdash; please read it, because your previous comments suggest to me that you have yet to do so closely and are assuming (somewhat incorrectly) that the problems in the lead section will be duplicated in the rest of the article. You wrote, "In many cases, no information on the source of the article is given whatsoever" &mdash; are you saying that some statements that should have inline citations are missing them? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
 * I disagree with the notion that internet sources should be used instead of print sources. If you doubt the print sources are being cited accurately, the information you need to find those sources (e.g. ISBN numbers) is there for you to use, as I mentioned in my previous response. A problem with relying on online references a lot is that the pages can be taken down or the URLs are changed &mdash; as you yourself demonstrated with the New York Daily News link, which I have replaced with a working one (and the New York Daily News is also available in print). The only references that were missing information about the date, author (where applicable) etc. have been removed (along with the content they were citing).
 * I don't see how the format and style of the Freddie Mercury article has any bearing on, or significant advantage over, this article. Furthermore, an article can be "honest" about criticism of the subject without having a separate "Criticism and/or controversy" section &mdash; please read the examples Orane provided above. I'm as concerned about the POV problems of a "Criticism" section in this article as I am about fans removing any content that casts Carey in a negative light (as they do often). Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw what looked like an anon attempting to start a FAR, with "article" spelled "acticle" in the wikilink. The talk page of the article had FAR and a long post of issues signed by the anon. Since (at that time) an anon could not create a new page, I assumed the only problem was the anon unable to start the FAR page, so I fixed the link and copied the text over from the talk page. There are a couple raw URLs in the article: those need to be fixed. It would be nice if you could nail down the year of birth with a real source. Otherwise, in my opinion, the cited criticism already in the article covers the main issue raised by the anon, and this review should be closed. Gimmetrow 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and POV (1d). Marskell 10:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep article's pov is fine, nominator completely mistook structure for lack of content. Alientraveller 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is quite well written, it gives context and not just sequences of events, and I don't have a problem re pov. Ceoil 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove.
 * A few trivial things need fixing: consistent external final pronunciation for quotes; wrong use of ellipsis dots (she has ever made ... Did this live performance); glitches like "america".
 * And a few non-trivial things, such as this sloppy sentence in the educational fair-use justification of "One sweet day": "... It illustrates an educational article the performer, writer and producer of this piece of music, Mariah Carey The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's R&B and MOR musical and vocal style, and as the most successful example of her several musical collaborations "  And I can't see where in the main text this educational value is. Needs to be struck out unless dealt with.
 * "She became a major songwriter and producer for other artists during this period"—attitudinal; needs a reference. Tony   (talk)  14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is FA quality. Some of the issues Tony raises above have been dealt with. Like Tony, I'm also not entirely convinced by the fair-use justification for "One Sweet Day", but it is there. Demian12358 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Until this article is cited correctly with dates and titles for all of the sources, it should not be a FA. There are also a lot of strange sentences, and it does not flow very well. These things need to be fixed up. Tkurt 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove

Closing: When FAR has 38 reviews going, I need to start closing things. On balance, I think this can be kept. Generous with regards to prose, but not outrageously so. Marskell 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.