Talk:Number 1 to Infinity/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: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Image appropriately licensed.
  • Link single, hashtag
  • So why is the first para of the background section relevant to the album?
    • Because it's just that, background info. This album was released under her label and contract.  — Calvin999 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, but I don't think that it's actually relevant to the album. It's important for her article. but not this album since there's no linkage between her new contract,label or management and the album.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just a little bit of background as to what happened in between the release of her previous one and this one.  — Calvin999 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • sought new a publicist with typo
  • number-one songs she had since attained attained reads oddly, perhaps recorded or some such?
    • No, because you don't record number-one songs. No one knows what will end up being a number-one during the production stage. She has attained number-ones.  — Calvin999 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • True enough, but every number 1 is recorded. And since all of these songs had already reached number one, your point is irrelevant. Attained just reads wrong to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is a bit of a pedantic comment. It reads wrong to you, but that is personal preference.  — Calvin999 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's bad grammar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Calvin999 When an experienced reviewer like Sturmvogel 66 tells you something doesn't sound right, you ought to pay attention and give some thought to it. The problem here is that the verb attain is being used incorrectly. It's really the songs that attained number one status, not Mariah Carey. She didn't attain number one status – the songs did. So you've either got to choose a different verb or reword the sentence. How about this? "...featuring the number-one songs she had since released"? Corinne (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I replied on your talk, Corinne.  — Calvin999 08:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • North American track listing of Why track listing instead of album, edition, or version?
    • Because there are three different track listings. They aren't different albums, they aren't editions because they isn't extra, added or bonus content, and version implies that it is in some way different aside from a few songs being changed.  — Calvin999 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this term is common in the industry, but it reads oddly to me as I don't associate track listing with a specific version of an album. Considering that an album is essentially just a group of songs, changing a few of them seems a fairly significant thing and something different. Howzabout pressing?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's how we do it in Music articles.  — Calvin999 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I'll have to see about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then why are you calling them editions in the track listings?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because the section is called "Track listings".  — Calvin999 08:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did she select All I Want for Christmas is You for the Japanese release?
    • Presumable the same reason as why they picked the other three for the International track listing, that it was a hit there.  — Calvin999 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, great, now source it to match your explanations for all of the other changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No such source exists to say that, and speculating it with a source to it being number-one in Japan is original research.  — Calvin999 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from "Infinity" being included on the set-list of her residency,[23] Carey returned to the Billboard Music Awards on May 17, 2015, for her first performance at the ceremony in seventeen years This doesn't make sense to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is was her first performance in 17 years?  — Calvin999 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read it as "made her first performance at the BMA in 17 years" which makes the first clause of the sentence disconnected from the the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Same difference? I don't see what you're seeing differently/what doesn't make sense.  — Calvin999 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mainly because you have not shown how Aside from "Infinity" being included on the set-list of her residency is relevant to the rest of the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've re-worded it.  — Calvin999 08:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Better, but what's the relevance of this clause: Aside from singing "Infinity" at her residency to the rest of the sentence?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • That aside from performing it nightly on her show to promote it, she also made other live performances.  — Calvin999 08:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment(s)

Sparing the talk page of Snuggums, I'm taking my comments here:

  • The first paragraph under the background section is completely "detached" from this article. Until there's a way to "connect" it to the compilation's creation, it's irrelevant. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a lot of background.  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what's apparently missing here is why Mariah is able to release her old tracks -- and that's because she's again under the umbrella of Columbia. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still not clear how she was able to get the rights to her non-Sony recordings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization of facts is haphazard. Was the release of the compilation a consequence of her residency? Or was her residency just part of the promotional activity? --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably it was all linked together. The whole project was about number-ones.  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the song's found under the section background? Shouldn't that be under "Content" or something? --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are issues in the prose that can be easily located such as in this sentence: "It became her twentieth entry on the chart since her self-titled eponymous album debuted at number 80 nearly 25 years prior on June 30, 1990, which later became her first of 6 overall number-one albums in 1991."
  • Twentieth as opposed 20th? Please be consistent. --Efe (talk)
  • Yes, because it's note a date.  — Calvin999 14:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "self-titled eponymous." Both have the same meaning. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearly 25 years prior on June 30, 1990" this is just too much information, rather redundant. Why not just state the exact date? --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the exact date was two weeks after to the day. Anyway, simplified.  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which later became her first of 6 overall number-one albums in 1991" is this even relevant? --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the album didn't hit number-one until the year after it was released.  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also peaked at number 2" remember that in the prior sentence, two albums are mentioned, therefore "it" might be confusing. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more issues. The decision is with the first reviewer, so up to you Calvin if you'd want to consider my comments. Ciao! --Efe (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks  — Calvin999 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 It's been a week since you last commented, would you mind returning please.  — Calvin999 08:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tell the reader who Hampp and Halperin are on first mention.
    • I already have.  — Calvin999 08:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Las Vegas in May and July 2015; it is called Mariah Carey #1's The residency is over, so past tense is needed.
    • Technically it's not over, she is doing shows next year too.  — Calvin999 08:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you might want to add a bit about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't need to tell them that there are more shows next year when we don't know if the content will stay the same (and from what Carey has said, it won't). It has no bearing. The residency could go on for years.  — Calvin999 19:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of issues with this: It became her twentieth entry on the chart since her eponymous album debuted at number 80 twenty-five years prior on June 30, 1990, which later became her first of 6 overall number-one albums in 1991. I'd split the sentence in half, this is a very busy sentence. Giving the exact date for her fist album is excessive info; the year suffices. And spell out six as per MOS. And why use "overall"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: Number 1 to Infinity is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "accessdate" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. Got this warning when I went to edit the article. You need to fix it, although it doesn't affect this nom since it's not visible to a casual reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what this means or what I'm supposed to do.  — Calvin999 19:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of your many cite web templates has accessdate in it twice. So you need to go and manually check them all. Are you OK with my rewording of your sentences?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • One had two access dates, another had two work's. Yes I am. Thanks.  — Calvin999 19:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, then we're done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Number_1_to_Infinity/GA1&oldid=682889102"