Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mariah Carey (album)/1

Mariah Carey (album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted by principal editor in response to GAR concerns. Geometry guy 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there are a number of reasons this is not quite a GA. First of all see comments by the original reviewer, CK Lakeshade) who requested reassessment on the talk page of GA (Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Mariah Carey (album)). I agree with his conclusion.

In the article with just a quick glance I noticed the following (consider how many were in the introduction alone)

Multiple release dates in the infobox (only 1 should appear).
No release history
Poor quality prose...
- e.g. "spending eleven non-consecutive weeks atop the Billboard 200 and reached top ten in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom" should be reached not reaching.
- e.g. "Five singles were released from the album, of them four " ... it should be "Five singles were released from the album, four of which" or something similar.
Vision of Love in the intro should in speech marks.
"the album experienced moderate success in most European markets, a trend her albums would follow until her 1993 release, "Music Box"." seems at oods with earlier statements about reaching top-ten. Suddenly we're suggesting that top-ten is moderately successful?
the intro focusses to much on sales and how succeful the album was instead of giving an accurate summary of the album/article as a whole.
lauded? perhaps you meant "acclaimed"?
This sentance, "Only seven made the final cut, but Carey was involved in the songwriting process throughout the writing and production of the following songs." as it leads nowhere but ends in a way suggesting that it does in fact lead somewhere.
carey and margulies → Carey and Marguilies (capitals for names)
"Originally, carey and margulies planned to produce the entire album as well, a decision that was turned away by her label." is not a good sentance try something like → The duo were planning to product the entire album however, a decision to which Carey's label was not satisfied.
Believed to be the next worldwide phenomenon, Sony Music executives hired a range of top of the line producers to ensure Carey's current and future songs would become hits. → Sony Music believe that she was the next worldwide phenomenon and subsequently hired a range of top producers to ensure that Carey's current and future songs had hit potential.
What defined Vision of Love as a worldwide phenomenon? was it charts? critical acclaim? both? not very clear.

See I've give several examples from the introduction to the end of the writing and development section which show a clear lack of understanding in what makes good reading. Many of the sentances start in the same way e.g. with a subphrase followed by a comma, and then more information. It reads like a series of direct quotes taken from the various book sources used. Sometimes songs are given in speech marks other times they aren't. A song should ALWAYS appear in "speech marks". The critical reception section seems bias. Every review usually mentions at least one negative thing but the critical reception section clearly side steps any negative comments. Bill Lamb from about.com said negative things included "Somewhat formulaic mix of uptempo tracks and ballads and A few weak songs pull down the overall album" though none of this is mentioned because the section has been clumsily written to omitt any critism. It also focuses way too much on Vision of Love. Statements like "Mariah Carey was moderately successful for a debut album outside the U.S." in the Commericial Performance section unsourced. The article also fails on MOS:NUM in some cases. Numbers less than 100 should be written in words not figures. Not all of the legacy section is relevant and not all of the information is placed in the correct section. (e.g. appearing on best songs of 1990 is not part of the legacy) in fact most of this section is more relevant to the song "Vision of Love" and is the legacy of that song rather than this album. The track listng fails on WP:Albums#Track list which states, avoid redundency by repeating that one person wrote/produced all of or nearly all of an album. Album credits are not sourced. Finally the single discography at the bottom of the page repeats a lot of information already contained in the singles section and does NOT follow the new manual of style for tables shown at WP:Wikitable.

Overall

It doesn't follow MoS
There isn't enough high quality information, too much is sourced from a biography and appears to be closely copied/paraphrased.
Poor quality prose.
Lots of fancruft/irrelavancy.
Bias... this article reads like an epitaph or promotional poster for "Vision of Love" it suggests that every other single from the album is not notable because "Vision of Love" blasted everything else of of the water.

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article is copied or paraphrased at all, its all original research. This article is not bias, its sourced and true. Also, Vision of Love and the album are what received all the attention, not really the other singles, so that is the way it went.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I've proven in the reception section that you have been overly bias by deliberately omitting negative comments. Original research is not allowed per WP:OR. It sounds paraphrased because its poorly written. It doens't follow MOS and the article is littered in every section about how good "Vision of Love" is. Half of the legacy section is about the achievements of the song not the album. Peter its beginning to look like you cannot edit anything relative to Mariah Carey with any level of neutrality or objectivity. If that's the case then you may have to cease editing things which are related to Mariah Carey. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the page has been worked on by myself and other editors, and it seems to me that it is ready.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldnot help but comment and agree with the initial reviewer LICLIKI. Peter, please get this planted in your head, that "you" and "editors who worked with you" thinking an article is ready is not consensus and is a logical case of wP:NPOV. You made a similar comment at the FLC of MC album, which I really frown upon. As it is, Lil-unique has pointed so many valid comments. I oppose this GA at present as of now, especially since the article is riddled with such unencylopedic and POV statements like "The album received generally positive reviews from music critics, many of them praising it for being a debut-album". I mean, seriously? Do a search of how many "positive" strings are there in the article compared to how many negative strings there are. And as I have said before, the article is about Mariah Carey the album, not "Vision of Love". And whatever legacy I see of the album (2 lines) is already repeated in the reception. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I personally has never nominated or reviewed an article for GA, but I'm surprised that a user, who joined Wikipedia in July 2010 and has nothing to do about GA, passed the article quickly without any concerns. Well for critical response, I believe that, at the time of its release, many music critics compared both the album style and Mariah herself to those of Whitney Houston's. But, I find nothing about such information in this article, only reviews which lauded the album. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where your getting this negativity from Legolas, I only differ in opinion from you, thats all, if you all really don't believe the article to be ready its fine, but don't make this about me. I believed it to be ready, nominated it twice and got it passed, it the Wikipedia community doesn't agree its ready, then that fine, delist it and let me work on these issues some more, and Ill re-nominate it in a few days. And Legolas, so you know when I do the critical reception of an album, I search through as many newspapers and reviews as possible, don't think I only look for the positive, because I would bet you that another review for this album is near impossible to find on the web. Don't think just because you disagree with me that your in for an edit-war, because I respect all of your opinions, I only disagree. Anyway, so I will delist it for now, and re-nominate after the article gets a re-vamp. Thanks everyone for your time!.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting negativity, but please cease such comments as "I think this is the best, so can we close it". These processes take time (GAR, FLC, FAC etc) so please be patient and reflect on the comments that reviewers are making. And comments like this "Don't think just because you disagree with me that your in for an edit-war", seriously doesnot make any sense and make me lose faith in your edits. You should learn that keeping an article balanced is integral to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, you cannot ignore that. Again, let the community decide whether it can be delisted or not. Mariah Carey has all the ingredients to be a GA, just that they haven't been cooked properly. You get what I mean? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, so okay, well just wait and see what people have to say.--PeterGriffin • Talk 06:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless someone sorts out the POV, this is a delist. I just read two online reviews - about.com and Slant - and they have been sanitised for the WP article, particularly in the "Legacy" section. There is a real mix of comment in those reivews - words like formulaic get used. She raps "badly". But this is not getting picked up properly. The article is not neutral as it stands. Whether reviews like that at about.com are reliable I have no idea - this isn't my field, but I'd like to hear some comment on that at some stage too. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm de-listing the article now. I am tired of this discussion, it is obvious more than a few editors don't feel the article is quite ready, so i will make the move and de-list it. I will fix up a few things when I get the chance and then re-nominate it. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]