Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photograph of Mary/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) 29 October 2023 [1].

---

Photograph of Mary

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a short article about American singer Trey Lorenz's second single "Photograph of Mary", produced by Walter Afanasieff and Mariah Carey. Heartfox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For the infobox image, I am unsure if Discogs is the best site for a source link as I have seen some questionable covers on the site. The archived version of the link also loads weirdly to me. I can see it for a moment, and then I get an error screen. Would it be possible to find an alternative for this link?

  Discogs has the highest-quality copy of the cover (ie outside of the jewel case), but it can also be found on Amazon.

  Good point. I think since there are other sources out there that validate this cover art's existence, then linking to the site with the highest-quality copy does makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about part of the lead's structure. Any reason why the sentence on the song's single release is put at the end of the first paragraph? From the articles I've read, it is more often put as the second sentence or one of the first ones. There is obviously not a set structure for these articles, but I was wondering about the rationale behind this choice?

  Moved to the second sentence

• In the opening sentence for the "Background and release" section, Mariah Carey is described through her nationality, but the same is not done for Trey Lorenz so it is a touch inconsistent.

  Removed "American"

• I have a question about this part, (forward to October 1992). I think it would be helpful to briefly provide some additional context and add when it was pushed forward from as it is not clear in the current wording. It could vary from anything to being pushed forward a week or two, a few months, or even from a 1993 release, and I think that clarification would help readers.

  Added

• I have a clarification question about this part, (To support the single, Lorenz appeared on the BBC1 children's television show Going Live!). It seems, at least based on my reading of this part, that Lorenz did not perform the song at this show so how did his appearance promote this song? It is not immediately clear to me.

  I removed that and will add it to the album article later

• I believe I already know the answer to this, but was there any further coverage on the music video other than it exists? I am guessing that would be a no, but I want to make sure.

  I couldn't find anything unfortunately

  That is what I had thought, but thank you for checking anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have a comment for this part, (It has a "na na na" hook resembling that in Elton John's 1970 single "Take Me to the Pilot"). This information is presented in Wikipedia's voice so it is stated as a fact, and I think it would be best to attribute this to the critic. I bring this up because a similar association is more clearly attributed in the prose in this sentence: (According to Music Week's Alan Jones, the song's beat is similar to songs by the group Soul II Soul.)

  Reworded

• I would link mastering in this part, (conducted mastering at Masterdisk).

  Linked

• The "Critical reception" section seems rather short. It may be a matter of personal preference, but since it is only a rather short paragraph, it may be beneficial to combine it with a different section, like the one for "Commercial performance".

  Yes as the second single from an obscure album there is not much extractable information from the minimal reviews. Some editors do not like combining critical and commercial sections so I will just leave it as is for now.

  That's fair. I think it just comes down to a matter of personal preference and I do respect the choice to keep these section separate. I will leave this up to other reviewers to discuss further. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• For this part, (Music & Media's Steve Morton and Billboard considered it), why is Larry Flick not attributed in the prose since it is credited as the editor in the citation?

  I don't know if he is the one writing all the reviews or just edited other anonymous writers' work

  For whatever reason, when I looked at this, my thought process went to the editors being the ones that wrote the reviewers, but you are right that this might not be the case so it is best to err on the side of caution. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would link Synclavier and Akai in the "Credits and personnel" section as I could see some readers being unfamiliar with them. I would also link items like mastering since more music-based jargon is often linked here to help readers unfamiliar with these terms.

  Linked

Great work and interesting choice. It seems like this song, and I would say Lorenz's music career as a whole, has largely been forgotten. I enjoyed reading through this article and as I am sure most people on here know, I do lean more toward the obscure stuff so that is probably why. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the helpful comments :) Heartfox (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I am glad that I could help. I will read the article again sometime tomorrow to just make sure that I have not missed anything. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find anything further to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thanks for the support. Sorry to bother you, but seeing as you have already looked at the infobox image, do you mind reviewing if the song sample is okay as a part of a media review if you have time? Best, Heartfox (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would be more than happy to look at the sample. File:Photograph of Mary Trey Lorenz.ogg has a clearly defined purpose within the article with an appropriate, informative caption. The WP:FUR is complete, and there is strong enough justification to include this piece of non-free media. This FAC passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

GWL

This is a short one so there shouldn't be much comments from me. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 04:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

* URL cites must have accessdates Why? All of the URLs have archive dates which essentially act as access dates as they permanently confirm information (i.e. with proof, unlike access dates) in a static nature For ref 38 I suggest making bullets: Converted to template Usually music articles as I see have external links like Discogs and MusicBrainz Per WP:EL external links should be "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not be included. I am not seeing anything on Discogs and MusicBrainz that is warranted for inclusion but not already given in the article. I am personally opposed to including by default links to these databases. Of course, a consensus could form on the article's talk page but I am not adding them myself. Remove "Single" in the alt text since it's repetitive to the subtitle "Single by Trey Lorenz" Removed "In 1990, then-college student"-- this feels kinda awkward to read, suggest "In 1990 while in college, Trey..." Reworded "The label promoted" --> "the label then promoted", to fix this paragraph's this happens, then this, then this flow Can you clarify what the problem is, wouldn't adding "then" make the flow worse? I'm not sure if I can explain properly, but this usually happens with film good articles "The film won this award. Then it won this award", and repeats it like 5x. Typically the way to resolve this is to introduce new wording to make it more engaging and not just A, B, C. I was thinking something like "In the United States, Epic issued "Photograph of Mary" .... It was then promoted to .... and released in the ...." Also as an additional note: "as a 7-inch vinyl" --> "on 7-inch vinyl". I agree but adding "then" in this instance implies that the radio promotion began after the physical release, which we don't know to be the case. Changed "as" to "on". "1992. Epic released the song in the United Kingdom" --> "1992, and later released it in the United Kingdom" Done "live on ITV's" --> "live on British television network ITV's" Reworded Link music vid Linked The attributions are all in past tense except for the last: "provide background vocals". Should it be this or provided? Changed to "provided" "at The Record Plant in California"-- decaps "the" Done "New York" --> New York City, for consistency w/ the infobox Done "Masterdisk in New York" --> "Masterdisk, also in New York City" It is not clear if Masterdisk is in New York City or New York State It is in Peekskill, New York. I think it should be included to be consistent with the other location tags, plus the fact that the facility's article mentions the location should do without needing extra refs here. GeraldWL 03:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC) I am seeing a 1997 Billboard article which indicates it was headquartered in Manhattan at the time. Changed "New York" to "Manhattan" "produced R&B, hip hop, and house music remixes" --> "produced R&B, hip hop, and house music remixes of the single." Added "on Cash Box R&B Singles"-- on the article it's "Cashbox" The magazine was known as "Cash Box" in 1992, not "Cashbox", and "Cash Box" is already bolded in the lead as an equivalent title so it shouldn't matter "on the club chart"-- why not using the full name, Record Mirror Club Chart? Added Link stuff in the tracklist paranthesis-- "Bass Hit Dub", "LP Version Edit" I don't think those are appropriate links. These are song titles, not nouns used in sentences. We don't know if "Dub" corresponds with the Dub music article. Like MOS:LINKSTYLE says, "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." "Recorded at The Plant Recording Studios ... The Record Plant (Los Angeles)"-- decaps the Done "Mastered at Masterdisk (New York)"-- add City Unclear if Masterdisk is in New York City References

Thank you for the comments GWL, replied above. Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That looks all good now, so I'm supporting. Good work! GeraldWL 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I plan on getting to your PR this weekend. Heartfox (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! If it's too long of an article and you'd like to narrow down your focus, I'm looking to see what HAL333 meant by phrasing problems from Post-production and the sections after that. But I'll happily wait for any cmts you have! GeraldWL 04:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Christhedude

Nothing to add to what GWL wrote other than......

• "several others composed remixes" - I don't think you really "compose" a remix. I suggest "produced remixes" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done

Thanks ChrisTheDude, Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• Source 14 - shouldn't the title be "Music: Trey Lorenz - Trey Lorenz (Epic)" since it's more specific? The reviews are all written by the same author but the article uses only the information from the critic's review of the song.

  Moved "reviews" to department parameter and added the suggested title

• Quite a few offline sources; I will AGF on those. FrB.TG (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the source review, Heartfox (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "several others produced remixes." I am not sure this works. It seems to suggest that there might be a non-several others. Suggest losing "several".

  Removed "several"

• Lead: "Epic Records issued it as the second single from the record in December 1992." Is "issued" synonymous with released? And could you point out where in the main article the isuue date of December is stated.

  Changed "issued" to "released". Sources for release dates of physical singles in the United States are virtually nonexistent pre-internet unless they were certified by the Recording Industry Association of America (and even then sometimes the dates are wrong). So the song's release to radio, which has an available citation supporting a specific month, is given as the issue date. This is stated in the body as "The label promoted it to urban contemporary radio stations in December 1992."

But "promote" in this context means, according to Wiktionary, "To advocate or urge on behalf of (something or someone); to attempt to popularize or sell by means of advertising or publicity." I took this to mean pre-release publicity. It doesn't unambiguously mean that radio stations had the whole song, much less were able to play it to the public. Above you use the phrase "release to radio", perhaps do the same in the article?

Changed "promoted" to "released"

• " "Photograph of Mary" received positive reviews from American and British critics.[a]... and Dave Sholin called it a "winner" in the Gavin Report" Would this be the same Dave Sholin mentioned in note a? If so, I suggest removing one of the mentions.

  Removed duplicates from the note

• In what way does reaching #18 on a US chart "not match" reaching #19 on the Canadian chart? Similarly, why does reaching #37 and #46 on other US charts mean it "fared better" than the #18 achievement?

  Added explanation, #18 is akin to #118.

What a nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. Just one pedantic quibble left. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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) 16:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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