Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 00:20, 10 January 2013 [1].

The Emancipation of Mimi

[edit]

The Emancipation of Mimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for taking a look :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments This article is pretty big (123 KB). Look at ways you can more effectively use summary style. For instance, there's not need to go into so much detail on the singles as they have their own pages. Dispense with a Singles section and only keep what is absolutely necessary for context. Make sure you are citing works properly. You are citing ref 150 to the UK Singles Chart, but the actual website is TheOfficialCharts.com. You're relying an awful lot on reviews for factual information; reviews are opinion pieces, not reporting. Compare the way sources are used here to In Utero (album), Loveless (album), OK Computer, and Modern Life Is Rubbish. Are there any biographical books on Carey that can be sourced? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesley, I pruned a good 15KB of fluff, so I hope this helps satisfy your itch. As for the references, I look them through, but I believe they are pretty on point. Lastly, I definitely see your dilemma. Unfortunately, the latest biographies of Carey date to around 1998-99, so they would be of no use here. Online reviews are really all we have to go by. And just to comment, the album you linked to has some very large and detailed sections, so I don't think it's fair we prune too much important info here. Thanks and let me know how it looks and any more comments!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I looked at that reference and don't quite see the issue. Maybe you mistook the number. Also, any factual information (sales, recording info, release dates etc.) are all from reliable websites reporting from actual interviews etc. The professional reviews are only there to give light on the artist's progress or summaries of their material.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support Oppose – Hello Nathan. Here's the review you requested. Unfortunately, I think there are issues in the article that warrant an oppose. I didn't get a chance to have a complete look at the article in the last FAC, but after reading it once over, I'm afraid there are some problems. With that said, I have to commend the fact that you've worked so hard on the article and have already trimmed it some. I think the article has a chance, a very good one, at FAC, with the right amendments.

  • Note: Resolved comments moved to the talk page.
  • I've added my support and need to thank you Nathan for your saint-level patience throughout these weeks. I'm glad I spent my time with this FAC because it's come a long way. Well done! As always, I'll continue to make copy edits as I feel necessary. One final suggestion right now would be to specify when the Adventures of Mimi tour happened to differentiate it from the April 2005 tour. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify (already done in the article): The promo tour was during the album's release, whereas the actual tour started 16 months later in July 2006. Well thank you very much WP! I couldn't have done it without you :) I again appreciate all the fixes, comments and times you've spent helping me with the article. You're a good friend :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publishers aren't required for newspapers, but if you're going to include them you should do so for all (ex FN30)
  • You're mostly doing link-on-first-occurrence in footnotes, but there are a few inconsistencies with that (ex FN27)
  • FN32: spacing
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for newspaper that don't include location in the title (ex FN81 vs 82)
  • FN86: hyphens should be dash
  • FN102: missing italics
  • Compare FNs 87 and 107 (and similar)
  • Some missing publishers (ex FN171). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Thanks for checking them out.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES
  • ""comeback album" by critics" I find it hard to believe that all critics stated that, perhaps a rewrite
  • "The album revealed a more intimate side of the singer" does that represent a neutral point of view, could you state how said that?
    • Tried to fix that, but it really is explained in the actual body of the article. I mean that's the point of the lead, to give you a brief summary. I'm sure if you read the article, you'd be more than satisfied at the whole "more intimate" etc.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "billed it Carey's" missing "as" between there
  • Avoid contractions such as "don't" per WP:MOS, unless it is in quotations
  • WP:OVERLINK of "Kanye West" don't link again after first mention after lede. See WP:REPEATLINK
  • "On Reid's recommendation" grammar fail, would change to "Based on Reid's recommendation"
  • Link "MTV" in Writing and recording section, see WP:UNDERLINK
  • MOS:IMAGELOCATION problems, images should not start on the left side of a section, hence it should be moved to the right side, or moved further down on the left side
  • "64/100" to "64 out of 100"
  • Add related portals to the article using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}
  • "On June 4 she" use American English here, please place a comma after "4"
  • "In composing the album" check your grammar there

More to come, that's just lede, infobox, and general formatting concerns. Ping me if I don't leave further comments quite soon. TBrandley 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Addressed comments from Aaron moved to talk


  • Comments: Generally a very nice read. I have made a handful of minor edits of things I noticed. A few comments:
Writing and recording:
  • "During one of her routine visits to the recording studio, Carey produced a beat with The Legendary Traxster.[10] She later met American rapper Twista backstage at one of his shows.[10] After discussing her collaboration with Traxter, Twista revealed that he had already written lyrics, and expressed interest in what later became "One and Only". By November, Carey felt that she had composed enough material for The Emancipation of Mimi.[" A couple of things in here. One is the use of "routine", which builds up the expectation that something extraordinary happened. But what happened? She went into the studio and... produced a beat. Isn't that what people do in the studio? I understand that her collaboration with Twista was the unexpected element, but I don't think the routine vs unexpected logic quite flows, and would recommend removing "routine".
  • Maybe tweak *Twista revealed that he had already written lyrics". I don't think "already" works here. He had written lyrics for himself (that presumably didn't have any music to go with them yet), but didn't know until now that Carey had music that might fit them, right? But it's also not clear whether he offered the lyrics after he had heard Carey and Traxter's beat (did she play it for him backstage, or maybe she sang it for him), or did she just mention it and they play it for him later?), and at what point he had an inkling that it might be a good match.
  • The source says "I got a beat from Traxter and did a song called “One And Only”. I saw Twista backstage at a show and I was telling him about the track, and he said that beat was supposed to be for him and he had written something for it, so we did a collaboration." That sounds like Traxter gave Carey a beat that Twista had already heard and was under the impression that Traxter had given it to him. It also sounds like he had already written lyrics for that particular beat. She also doesn't say that it was necessarily Twista's concert that she saw Twista backstage at. Additionally, she doesn't say that she played the material for him, just that she told him about it. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the collaborations on "Stay the Night" and "One and Only" (two songs) and then suddenly "by November"... Carey had an album's worth of songs. Six songs from the album are mentioned in the section as being written with Traxter, Twista, or Dupri. So presumably the other eight songs on the album were written before November? Are there any stories behind these other songs, which were also all collaborations? If not, maybe a transition sentence or two (right before the "by November" one) along the lines of "Meanwhile, Carey also wrote and recorded several other songs, with songwriters and producers including..." Also, is the timeline clear enough leading up to November? Do you have any information about when the writing and recording sessions began, or at least whether the sessions leading up to November were over several weeks, or several months? Moisejp (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm going to continue re-reading the article and may have some more comments in the coming days.) Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on Reid's recommendation, Carey met with Jermaine Dupri in Atlanta for a brief studio session, since she had written some of her best work with him." Should this be "since Reid felt that she had" or possibly "since Carey and Reid felt that she had". As is, it's not clear whose opinion it is. Moisejp (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singer described her frustration with the overproduction on many of her previous albums, due to the inclusion of what she considered unnecessary 'bells and whistles'." When did she describe this? Did she tell this to Reid? Moisejp (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition:
  • "Carey described The Emancipation of Mimi as her most most expressive album to that point" When did she describe this? I would specify or else use the present perfect ("has described").
  • "The album's motif of professional and cultural emancipation is demonstrated throughout various songs. Many feature Carey's "lack of restraint" and incorporate a musical diversity not featured on Charmbracelet." Possibly consider specifying in the text whose views these are. Well, assuming the answer is in the citation, I think the intelligent reader can figure out that its the viewpoint of the author of the citation. But it seems like most FAC reviewers want it spelled out in the text itself, so for consistency of style and expectations, it would be an idea to spell it out here, too. Moisejp (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments Moi, I believe I have addressed them all. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Done Moi. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes about the Traxter/Twister collaboration are a definite improvement. I did a little tweak. I accidentally pressed return before I'd finished typing my edit summary, but I just thought the more general "lyrics" matched the source better than "a verse". Also, I thought "mention" flowed better than "discuss" but there's another verb you want to use in there, that could be cool, too. Moisejp (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Composition: Structure and Style) This needs fixing: "During the interview, Carey spoke on the album's lack of creative restraint she felt was not featured on Charmbracelet." What interview? The last mentioned interview (from Fox News) is from a different source. Moisejp (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great. I think this article is definitely making progress. Another comment: "While most tracks derive instrumentation from live bands and musical instruments, some of the uptempo songs feature computerized arrangements and synthesizers." I understand the contrast you're trying to make, but I'm not sure it completely works, because isn't a synthesizer a musical instrument? What if you cut "and synthesizers", would it still be true? Moisejp (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Cryptic C62:

  • Other charting songs does not have enough content to exist as a subsection, or even as a paragraph.
  • ""So Lonely" reached number 65 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart due to limited airplay on R&B stations.[2]" This sentence is not supported by the citation given.
  • "Carey ultimately sued the promoter, claiming $1 million in damages for the concert's abrupt cancellation." What was the result of this lawsuit?
  • In the Professional ratings chart, why is Entertainment Weekly's score placed in parentheses?
  • The Credits and personnel section would be more readable if the slaves were grouped by role, rather than listing them all alphabetically. Songwriters: Thom Bell, Darnell Bristol, Calvin Broadus, etc.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Media review

—Andrewstalk 07:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion 3 only Adabow (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Pretty much there in terms of prose. References seem reliable.
Lead
  • many of whom appeared as featured guests on some tracks. - The "some" doesn't flow well for me. There must be a better way to phrase it
General
Removed "over"s at the last second. Simply not a fan of it; more than is so much better!

Good work. I'll probably come back tomorrow; I have an eye infection and it's likely I missed some things. ceranthor 03:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Running through and fixing things. Still seems good to me. ceranthor 13:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Oppose, 1a, prose.

  • Repetitive prose, first sentence in "Promotion" begins with:
  • Carey embarked on a promotional tour in support of the album ...
  • and the first sentence in the next section, "Tour", begins with:
  • In support of the album, Carey embarked on her first headlining tour in three years, ...
  • The tour received a positive response from fans and critics, many of whom praised the quality of Carey's vocals.[81][82] ...
  • Many of whom, based on two sources.
  • In Tunis, Carey played to more than 80,000 people during the span of in two concerts.[78] Midway through the tour, she booked a two-night concert engagement in Hong Kong, which was scheduled for after her Japanese shows.[83]
  • "Span of" is redundant and unhelpful -- it was two concerts. Midway through the tour, she scheduled a two-night concert in Hong Kong following her Japanese shows.
  • Although tickets had gone on sale, the performances were cancelled. According to Carey's then-manager Benny Medina, the cancellation was due to the concert promoter's refusal to pay the singer her agreed-upon compensation.
  • Convoluted, wordy. The performances were cancelled after tickets went on sale; Carey's then-manager Benny Medina said the cancellation was because the concert promoter refused to pay the agreed compensation.

These are samples only from one small section I checked. This article has come very far in its several FACs, but the prose isn't over the line yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I appreciate your review, but I have some concerns/comments. I've addressed all your comments, and hope you can return for a more in-depth review. I'm honestly concerned about your oppose, and don't think its completely justified. A FAC nom is not supposed to be perfect; its striving for perfection (with the help of reviewers). Obviously you're going to find a few small errors, but I'm concerned with you only posting 4 small grammar issues taken from two sizable sections. Yes, if "over the line" means Sandy is not going to find even the smallest grammar error, then no nom would pass. I hope you can revisit and possibly work together with me in a more in depth analysis. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to express a concern I have in the best possible way. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, please ping me once you've worked through Laser's concerns, and I'll take a fresh look. No, articles are never perfect, but we should get as much covered as we can before we let 'em through the door at FAC. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Laser brain

[edit]
  • Oppose. I unfortunately have to concur with Sandy's assessment. I know it's disheartening to have an FAC open this long only to have opposition, but problems are readily apparent in the prose. I started reading randomly at the Release section:
  • The prose is extremely repetitive (ie "it was release here, then it was released there, then it was released there")
  • Why was it released in Mexico first? It seems a relevant detail given Carey is not a Mexican artist.
  • "Available in digital download and physical CD" As opposed to what kind of CD?
  • "In the United Kingdom, The Emancipation of Mimi was distributed through Mercury Records." Why are we being told this? The UK release date is not even given in this paragraph.
  • Since you called out the exceptions for Mercury in the UK and Universal in Canada, are we to assume Island Def Jam released the album everywhere else?
  • Why is there no "rest of the world" release date given? Are the countries listed the only places the album was released?
  • The next section begins with another "was released" sentence—too repetitive.
  • "co-written and co-produced by Carey with Jermaine Dupri" And Jermaine Dupri, surely.
And:
  • MoS: Do not use single quotation marks unless inside double quotation marks.
It's probably not miles off, but it needs a lot of fit and finish. A featured article should not have so many issues that don't require much digging to find. --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Alright delegates. This has been going on for quite some time, and I don't think I have much time left (nor do I think this should be left open). Unfortunately, Sandy and Laser weren't able to bring this to my attention sooner, but alas. I started university again, and don't have the time to try and cram all this within the next few days. What can I say, I thank you all for the help and support I received. Maybe one day, if I'm bored enough, I'll give this another try. Please Close the nomination. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Emancipation_of_Mimi/archive4&oldid=1140386388"