Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mariah Carey/archive3

Mariah Carey

 * Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section
I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns.  Scarlet Violet  (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.


 * As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines.  Scarlet Violet  (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope.  Scarlet Violet  (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You say so. This has been reopened.  Scarlet Violet  (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * and, do either of you have any interest in trying to address the sourcing issues? If no one wants to take this on, it'll probably be delisted shortly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also pinging 750h+ 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, per criterion 2c of WP:FACR, the citations should be consistently formatted. The citations are not formatted consistently; some of the publishers are linked, while others are not. Also, there are many duplicate links in the article (as I've checked), which is also required by the criterion 2. Featured articles follow all of the Manual of Style, whereas Good articles only follow five of the MOS guidelines (lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation). For now, I am planning to rewrite the article and fix the issues. I advise you take Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift as two example for articles that follow proper FA guidelines. When you look at the article, it follows all of the standards for featured articles. Hopefully, the Carey article will be re-promoted to FA in a couple years from now when it meets all of the FA standards.  Scarlet Violet  💬 📝 12:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll at least start work on citations within the next 24 hours, though with regards to linking terms, I thought it was common practice to only link the first one to use a term and that subsequent uses of that publication didn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK. From a glance at this version of the page, it would for example mean The New York Times is just linked in ref#5 and Toronto Star in ref#27. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE it looks like all the subpar sources have been removed, and I've linked some more terms. Before I make additional changes with linking (or lack thereof) for publications used more than once (such as multiple MTV News or Entertainment Weekly articles), does anybody know for certain whether it's expected to be a first-mention-only or all-instances ordeal? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you choose. Would suggest that improvements should made in due time, otherwise its status will be gone.  Scarlet Violet  💬 📝 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry; typically an FAR stays open as long as there are people willing to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The sections too are very long, unlike the Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift articles, which are very concise and short. Consider splitting it into subsections in a similar fashion to The Beatles and BTS. Improving while its FA status is active not enough. Would suggest removing the status first, then once the article meets the FA criteria, then the article can be ready for re-promotion.  Scarlet Violet  💬 📝 01:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not be so hasty; I've cleaned out lots of duplicate links from the article body and Heartfox has helped me in improving citations. How much splitting would be adequate? In the meantime, I also have touched up some of the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I boldly went ahead with some splits and here is what the article looks like afterwards. Hopefully it's a step in the right direction. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. Let's think positive, not negative, shall we? I'm also planning to write major changes in the sandbox first before revamping it in the article itself. This time, I would also split Carey's cultural status to its own article: like Cultural impact of Mariah Carey. Title follows other articles like Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Taylor Swift, Cultural impact of BTS, etc.  Scarlet Violet  💬 📝 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea at all. Before you implement the sandbox changes, please do show what they look like. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)