Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have reviewed and album and I liked this one so here goes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
  • My first impression when looking at this is "Why is the WP:LEAD so damn long. The article is 39374 characters of readable prose. The lead is 3293 characters. While anything over 30KB can justify full utilization of the LEAD length, which I think should be 2800-3000 characters, I usually see 50-60K articles maxing out the LEAD. A 38.45 KB article might be more likely to be properly represented with a 2500-2800 character LEAD. That being said, I will evaluate the content of the article and attempt to determine what properly summarizes it. I am just not sure how essential it is for a reader of this article to see content like this: "Following the personal and professional struggles towards the end of the 1990s, as well as the relatively poor critical and commercial responses to her subsequent efforts, Glitter (2001) and its follow-up Charmbracelet (2002)," It may well belong in the main text, but is it required reading for a reader of this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is the proper length; it might seem too long for your own personal taste. Look at Length. For an article 30K or over (this one is almost 40) four full paragraphs is appropriate. A paragraph is usually 5-6 sentences in normal English. I see no issues with it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph seems bloated.
    • What seems bloated about it? It briefly discusses its inspiration, musical style and content. Again, you gave no specific area that is extra.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please reread WP:WIAGA. N.B. section 3b. Then, see note 1 on the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read it. Again, I don't see where the lead goes off from the main topic. All four paragraphs are heavily focused on summarizing the main contents of the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Basically, you need to consider the purpose of the WP:LEAD. I am the type of reader who typically reads just the LEAD and infobox of an article. Most LEADs are too skimpy and very few are too detailed. Consider the two summaries and let me know if the reader is left at a loss for anything essential to the understanding of the album in the latter:
            E=MC² (abbreviation of Emancipation=Mariah Carey²) is the eleventh studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, first released in the United States on April 15, 2008 by Island Records. Following the personal and professional struggles towards the end of the 1990s, as well as the relatively poor critical and commercial responses to her subsequent efforts, Glitter (2001) and its follow-up Charmbracelet (2002), Carey returned to the top of pop music in 2005 with The Emancipation of Mimi (Mimi). Subsequently, she began recording the album in late-2007 in Anguilla, after writing and composing most of its material during and after her Adventures of Mimi Tour (2006). Carey worked with several famed songwriters and producers during the course of the project, including Jermaine Dupri, Bryan-Michael Cox, Stargate, The-Dream, Tricky Stewart, Scott Storch and Danja.
            E=MC² (abbreviation of Emancipation=Mariah Carey²) is the eleventh studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, first released in the United States in 2008 by Island Records. It came about following personal and professional struggles and a 2005 return to the top of pop music with The Emancipation of Mimi (Mimi). She began recording the album in late-2007 in Anguilla, after writing and composing most of its material during and after her 2006 Tour. Carey collaborated with a variety of songwriters and producers on this album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, please consider WP:MOSBEGIN carefully.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes Tony. Absolutely necessary. First off, you removed information regarding when and where is was recorded, and when Carey began writing material for it. Additionally, for someone not familiar with Carey's past or the album, the sentence regarding "struggles" would not make sense. I mean this in no offense buddy, but it seems like you are willing to sacrifice clarity and completion for length and the removal of a few lines in the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am convinced to allow the full date to remain. It is useful information for the reader of this album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are barking up the wrong tree when you say that the following content is essential to the distillation of the most basic understanding of this subject: "Following the personal and professional struggles towards the end of the 1990s, as well as the relatively poor critical and commercial responses to her subsequent efforts, Glitter (2001) and its follow-up Charmbracelet (2002)." There is absolutely no reason that people needing the basic information about this album should have to wade through content like that even in the fourth paragraph of the LEAD, let alone the opening paragraph. It is not essential or basic information about this subject. Explain it briefly in the main text. Remove it from the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not clear to me that we need to know the name of her 2006 Tour at a basic level of understanding of this 2008 album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not clear to me that we need to know which producers she worked with, but if you removed some other content, I would not fight too hard about it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mimi not properly established as a nickname for the prior album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't ever refer to Carey as Mimi.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "it was meant to be a continuation, or second part of Mimi". Yet, you never stated anything like The Emancipation of Mimi (henceforth Mimi).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background and recording
Title and cover art
  • These two opening sentences are redundant: "Prior to the its release, the album's working title had been That Chick, taken from a song on the album with a similar name, "I'm That Chick". Before being switched to E=MC², the album was originally planned to be named That Chick, a reference to one of the album tracks"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Calvin999
  1. I don't think there is any need for the first two paragraphs of the Background section Nathan. E=MC2 was released in 2008, and contains one song about Mariah's marriage to Tommy, this should all be put into the Side Effects article, as that is what it is for. I think it's getting a bit repetitive and unnecessary to keep talking about Mariah's past going back to the early 1990s in practically every article related to Glitter, Charmbracelet, TEOM and E=MC2, it's just regurgitated info. You should start the paragraph from when Mariah started conceptualising for the album during the TAOM Tour, with maybe only 2/3 lines about Side Effects, because the first two paragraphs are just too much, and isn't needed considering her breakdown etc. happened 7 years previous. And I really don't see the relevance of this: "Carey described her album Butterfly (1997) as her magnum opus, and her greatest and most personal work, due to its personal and emotional background.[10]". Less is more sometimes Nathan.
  2. I think the Music and lyrics is also far too expansive. You know I like reading Mariah articles of yours, but I actually couldn't be bothered to read all of that section and got bored, once again, there is far too much there, it's ridiculously long and could be easily reduced by at least half. Talk a bit about the singles, maybe 3/4 lines for each, maximum, as their should be more detail for the Touch My Body, Bye Bye, IBLYLT and I Stay In Love articles, and talk the songs without articles in a bit more detail, about 5/6 lines.
  3. And I am shocked by the Singles section. I'll tell you why. You want me to reduce Loud's singles section to practically nothing, even though there are 7 singles and one 'Other songs' to talk about, yet this section is even bigger than Loud's, and E=MC2 only had 4 singles, 3 of which didn't even chart well. The length of the Touch My Body paragraph is longer than the California King Bed, Man Down and Cheers (Drink to That) paragraph. I think you should take your own advice on this one.

I'm really surprised at your reactions and comments here and on my GAN for Loud. What you are asking me to do on Loud is the complete opposite of what you have done here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off Calvin, do not come here combative and accusing of anything. As it happens to be, your comments on Loud do not belong here. If you wanted to approach me you could have on my talk page. Now, the background section will be reduced; know that you had nothing to do with that discussion. I pasted a lot of info in haste, and did not review the article prior to nominating, so I did include some superfluous information. Regarding the "Music and lyrics" section; I have never told you to reduce that section on Loud. That is the most important section on music articles (something you should have on "Wait Your Turn"). If I even think about reducing that, it would be minimal, and something discussed in between myself and Tony. Lastly, the singles section is shorter than on Loud, so I don't know what the hell you are coming up here with? I didn't tell you to give me a line per song. And seven singles? You want to tell me how many of those are notable.... As a notice, the singles section contains 742 words, whereas Loud has almost 1000 (after being reduced 3 times). So where you get the balls to make these comments I don't know. My issue might be an excess of information, but that is better than your, a serious lack of it. Take "Oh Santa!" for example.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being combative or accusing anyone of anyone, it's just my opinion from reading the article. I just used Loud as an example, because I didn't understand why you have said the things you said in the Loud GAN, but have done the complete opposite here, it just surprised me. I never said you told me to reduce info on the Loud Music and lyrics section, I don't know where you got that from? And with regard to Wait Your Turn, as you know, you can only include sourced information. The Loud singles section is bound to be longer, it doesn't matter if they are notable or not, as there are 8 songs to talk about. Cheers only has 2 lines. Nathan, please don't get all annoyed that I made a comment here, I was just writing it as I see it. I just think that too many sections in this article are excessively long, having too much of something is just as bad as not having enough, you've got to find the right balance; as you told me the other day, the single's articles are there for the in depth detail. Don't take what I have written the wrong way (though I feel you have), you know I value your opinion's and are a good friend on here. And I waited until this article had a reviewer so that I could post comments here, I thought that would be the correct thing to do. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round Two[edit]

Tony, I am having trouble navigating through this page, let us please start the discussion here. I have removed 6kb of superfluous information from the background section. That solves your first issue. Regarding the lead, I don't give the name (its linked), ad yes, telling the reader that 1 line is important. Listen here. I have addressed your main concern, don't think I intend to wave every issue you post. FYI, I also changed the quote box to your liking, so I do compromise. I hope we can get past this 1 line of lead, and move on Tony, I have already moved a lot in your direction. And don't get combative please, I want to keep this review very calm and productive. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background much more reasonable at 2445 chars of readable prose!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant the other left with the quote box.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize. My cellphone was stolen and I am now a first time smart phone user. I have had the phone 4 hours and still have not figured out how to save phone numbers or change the speaker volume. I am going to be a bit preoccupied. Please excuse me if I don't comment significantly for a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like :) Sure, take your time!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am away revisit the WP:LEAD. It is a summary of the main body, which contains further detail. If there are details now removed from the main body that remain mentioned in the LEAD, remove them there as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musics and lyrics
  • The first four or five lines seems to belong in the next section. Then the rest of the paragraph contains two new subjects (songs) that should be separate paragraphs.
    • I don't think it would belong there. Take a look at what I did now, maybe it will make more sense.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph should be split in two with the two main songs getting their own paragraphs.
  • "I Wish You Well" and "Bye Bye" both have sufficient content for separate paragraphs.
    • Wait, you want me to make smaller paragraphs?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each one that I am suggesting is more than a stub. Each song that has more 4-500 characters of prose probably should be its own paragraph. "Cruise Control" shouldn't, but you have done such a fine job of researching almost all of the others that they merit their own paras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain to me why this is not integrated with the singles section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the composition section talks about the song's musical bed, instrumentation, production, writing, lyrics etc. The singles section discusses their commercial aspects, as well as the critical. So its critical commentary Vs. composition. See?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a musician, but what if there was one section for singles with subsections for musicality and commercial response/success? Then move the album critical response subsequent to the Style & structure section if not merged with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know Tony. I've written almost 20 album GAs, and I've never had an issue with this style or format. Is their are specific quotes that you feel aren't composition, and belong with critical, then by all means. But I think this is how it should be. Look at The Emancipation of Mimi, its one of my best, and currently doing well at FAC :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, I don't see the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1 going that well. I give it a 30-40% chance of passing. In terms of album GAs, you certainly know how to research the hell out of albums. I marvel at your work. I have had a few WP:SONGS GAs (I think I have 4 or 5), but my work pales to yours. In fact, feel free to add some content to Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), which is at WP:PR, if you know how to find anything for songs of that era. In terms of this GA, I am not saying that I disagree with what is compositional and critical. What I am saying, is that I think there should be a section that discusses the album as a whole and then another that discusses singles individually. Within each you could have two sections. I think there are many readers like me who are a bit less musically trained, but who like music. I think that organization might help them better. However, maybe you might point me to some sort of WP:ALBUMS policy guide.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also feel strongly about lengthy bits of content grouped into paragraphs. I don't see why two songs should share a paragraph when each has sufficient content to make a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the FAC has (whether or not comments are striked they are resolved, so I'm just waiting for editors to come and reply) been doing decently well; I am happy with it. Not saying it will for sure pass, but I'd give it 60% chance :) Now, I see what you're saying, but I don't see where these issues are found. The Composition section is all about the songs, I mean, it goes song by song listing its musical info. So maybe you can give me an example of lines that are from the album? As for the paragraphing, Tony, I say this honestly, feel free to paragraph it any way you see fit. That really doesn't bother me. I'm just confused as how you want it. Really, I don't mind :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • As for paragraphing, in the "Songs and lyrics" section make paragraphs for each song that has enough content to stand as a distinct paragraph. It is just proper grammatical structure to separate subjects by paragraph.
              • My suggestion, which may be wrong for some technical reason that I don't understand as a non-musician, is that the entire "Songs and lyrics" section, which provides details about songs be moved into the "Singles" section as a subsection with the current content in that section being a second subsection to this section. Explain to me problems with that organization or why the current is better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sure, I'll get to the paragraphing. Well, you can look at any album page, even FAs, and can ask other music editors with many album GAs (Legolas) that this is the proper way to structure an album article. The composition section is where the album's "composition" is discussed, which is, its songs. The singles section also is only intended for the album's "singles" (only four out of 14 songs), so it would be inconsistent to have it that way.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll have another look after you reorg the paras and move the quote box.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'll recheck this in a day or two, but it is not looking good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nathan is unlikely to be on for perhaps another week/week and a half. He went on holiday for a month around September 10, so I doubt he will be back until October 10. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Tony, if you note the concerns, I will address them and will try my best to fix the issues. Novice7 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read my comments above. I think we have a disagreement on some formatting issues and I was waiting for a response on some things. I had wanted some paragraphs broken up and the quote box moved before moving forward with the review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it failed for a slightly different reason; you refused to provide or post a proper review, instead opting to leave it in limbo for 5 weeks because of "paragraphing"...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E%3DMC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)/GA1&oldid=1140254468"