Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Never Forget You (Mariah Carey song)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [1].

Never Forget You (Mariah Carey song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What song could manage to reach number three on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1994 with no live performances or even a music video? None other than a Mariah Carey single of course! Thanks in advance for any comments :) Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)

File:Mariah Carey - Never Forget You.jpg - has appropriate WP:FUR for its inclusion
File:Never Forget You Mariah Carey.ogg - meets maximum length permitted per WP:SAMPLE

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Thought I'd give the prose a review as well.

Perhaps it would be helpful to wiki link Strings, synthesizers, and percussion to their articles, similarly to other song articles link these.
Added
In the infobox, under songwriters, should Babyface be referred to as Kenneth Edmonds? or does the media notes refer to him as the former?
The notes refer to him as "Babyface" for both producing and writing

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

writer Dave Ferman reckoned her voice more restrained than on songs -- her voice was more restrained
Added
Would it be better if the prose for chart performance be a separate section i.e. "Commercial performance", and the table be "Charts" section? (similar to other FA song articles)
I would normally but I thought making a five-row table for only one country its own section seems a little excessive. I'm kind of treating it like an image that expounds on the adjacent text.

That is perfectly acceptable, given that is only one country. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall not much to say. A well-written article for one of Mariah Carey's lesser known gems. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the prose review, Heartfox (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work and I am happy to support on prose. Btw if you have spare time and inclination, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance, but I have a clarification question. If "Without You" and "Never Forget You" were both released on the same day, what makes "Without You" the third single and "Never Forget You" the fourth? It is clear that "Never Without You" was a fully-fledged single, but I was just confused on the chronology here. The lead makes it sound like the songs were promoted at the same time. The article, specifically the second paragraph of the "Background and release" section, could be read as "Never Forget You" getting a later single release in the more vague "January 1994" radio date, but I would appreciate some further clarification here.
(Basically I could not find a physical release date for "Never Forget You", so I used the date it was issued as a B-side). Shapiro page 155 lists all of Carey's singles in chronological order up to 2000 and lists "Never Forget You" as the fourth single from Music Box, following "Without You". He does not list it as a double A-side. Likewise, a 1994 Billboard article refers to it as the B-side to "Without You", rather than a double A-side promotion. The US cover of "Without You" lists it as a double A-side, but the cover of "Never Forget You" does not. What is confusing people is that they charted together on Billboard charts. But that is only because of Billboard rules, not because Columbia necessarily intended for them to do so. Perhaps the third single would actually be "Without You/Never Forget You", and the fourth is "Never Forget You", but I think that is a bit too confusing to the average reader so it is easier to separate them. Also, it was only potentially a double A-side in one territory (the US), so there is another caveat there.
Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me, and I believe this is represented as well as it can be in the article. Billboard rules can often be confusing, and you have a much firmer grasp on it than I would have to be perfectly honest. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear upfront, I highly doubt this would be notable enough to include in the article, but Mariah Carey did release a perfume named after this song (as seen here). I doubt anyone talked about it, but I still wanted to raise it to your attention just in case.
There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it in relation to the song
Thank you for checking into this one. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (After the 1992 release of her first EP), I would fully spell out extended play and link it for readers who are not as familiar with this kind of music jargon. I believe this is the only time the acronym EP is used (unless I am overlooking anything) so I do not think it is necessary to use it here.
Done
For this quote ("leaning toward the basic R&B feel while not forgetting the orchestration and polish"), I would attribute who is saying this as it is rather ambiguous and vague at the moment.
Attributed
The R&B link should be moved up to the first instance in the article that it is mentioned (i.e. the basic R&B feel). I have the same comment for ballad, which should be moved up to this part (traditional ballad productions).
Done
Since most of the instruments seem to be linked (including basic ones like percussion), I would also link bass just for consistency.
Done
I believe I know the answer to this question already, but I still want to ask. Aside from the one lyric already mentioned in the article, did any other music critic highlight other lyrics? I am leaning on that being a no, but again, I just like to make sure with you as it was something on my mind.
The Washington Post highlighted the lyrics given in the article, but I did not see any others singled out
Fair enough. Thank you for checking into this one for me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part (Carey had wanted to collaborate after) feels incomplete and I would go with collaborate with him after, but let me know what you think of course.
Added
I do not think Hollywood needs a link as it is a very recognizable city to a majority of readers.
Removed
Link David Browne in the article and the citation. I do not know if it is a good or a bad thing that I immediately recognized his name and knew he had a Wikipedia article. I think that really shows how long overdue my wikibreak is.
Usually I look for links, but I missed that one :)
These are in my opinion the most pain in the neck ones to do so it is more than understandable to miss one. It was honestly just a surreal moment to be able to recognize it on sight alone. Again, not sure if that is a good thing on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued by how the chart performance table is used in the article. I do not mean this as a bad thing just to be clear. I genuinely think it is an interesting approach and I can appreciate it. I just wanted to note that.
I think it works nicely in this instance given there is year-end positions for almost all of the rows and the table is small enough to fit next to prose
Agreed. There is also something just visually satisfying about it, at least from my perspective of it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should cover everything, but once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to just make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Apologies for only doing a prose review, but I am trying to be more mindful of my time on here and take a break. Wonderful work as always and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always, Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article again, and I could not find anything else. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"Credits adapted from the Music Box liner notes." I don't think it is necessary to cite in line. The actual citation contains the same information. (Or should. :-) )
Where should I move the citation?

I have had a go. Does it work for you?

Looks good

"Jermaine Dupri altered them for remixes." I may be displaying my lack of hipness, but what does "altered" mean in this context?
changed, remixed, adapted, etc.

Ok.

" "Never Forget You" is Carey's first single without a music video." Should "is" be 'was'?
Only one thing can be the "first", so I think present tense is okay
""Never Forget You" is a slow jam situated in pop and R&B music." What does "situated" mean in this context - ideally with reference to a reliable dictionary to support the usage.
Reworded to "Never Forget You is a pop and R&B slow jam"
The lead describes the romance as "unforgettable"; I cannot find this in the main article.
The lyrics given in the composition and lyrics section "No, I'll never forget you / I'll never let you out of my heart / You will always be here with me / I'll hold on to your memories, baby"; paraphrased this as "unforgettable"

Given that you are not quoting, that strikes me as OR from a primary source.

Removed

Books - standardise the ISBN hyphenisation.
Standardized

Short and sweet article. Just the minor points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Heartfox (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Just "unforgettable" left. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Ms Carey should ever read the article, I am sure that she will think that you have done the song proud. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reviewing this version, I note some slight inconsistency on which sources have pagenumbers and which don't. Also some broken ProQuest links. #49 citation probably needs a ref=none. Does the Gavin Report not have bylines? Can't find much on Loria, Keith at Arizona Daily Sun. This batch has a spotcheck only on request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a page number is provided for all sources that have a page number, so there won't be page numbers when it is not citing a physical article.
All of the ProQuest links work for me, can you let me know which ones specifically.
I don't know why there would need to be a ref parameter, is there an issue you are seeing?
I added the section editor for Gavin
If you click on the article link Keith Loria is "Associated Press Writer"

Thanks for the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Heartfox (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like I mistook "login walled" for "broken" so nevermind on #2 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I addressed your other comments, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Heartfox (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I didn't spotcheck anything and that I don't know the sources, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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