Jump to content

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

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

Resolved comments by Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

  • I find the word "music" in "music critics" redundant on an album article, largely because it is evident by whom this album was reviewed. "Musical" is also redundant in "musical guests".
  • Here: "Following the relatively poor critical and commercial reception to her albums Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002), The Emancipation of Mimi became her highest-selling release in almost a decade, and was considered Carey's "comeback album" by music critics." – since the sequence is "critical and commercial", it would be more coherent to state the "come back album" fact before the "highest-selling release" fact. By the way, I'm not quite sure how ref 1 works. I can't seem to access the article.
  • I probably asked this before, but what are "commercial setbacks"? Perhaps you could explain to me in the FAC page? Thanks. Also, I will say this too: is there a simpler way to say "celebratory aesthetics"?
    • I think from the first paragraph in the lead we can already deduce what is implied here by "commercial setbacks".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point that is trying to be made in the Context section is that following the unsuccessful Glitter, Carey attempted to make a comeback with Charmbracelet, but that did not turn out as expected. Is there any way to present that point much more concisely, without the irrelevance of other things? For instance, do we really need to know about the Total Request Live thing, and the writing and recording behind Charmbracelet? To be honest, we don't really get to know about anything directly related to The Emancipation of Mimi until the Titling and development section, or at least we are given that impression.
    • That is correct :) That is the point. I trimmed it considerably, but I do think its necessary to give the reader some kind of background info on how the album was such a personal and professional booster. As for the quote, if you really don't think it works I wouldn't mind removing it (but I'd prefer to keep it). It's up to you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I love background information too—it gives context, as your heading states, and sets the reader up. My suggestion was to present the information in the least words possible. Also, it should be presented in a way that doesn't confuse readers into thinking that they are reading about the wrong album. And the opener "Before the release of her ninth studio album, Charmbracelet" only makes things more puzzling. The section seems just a little fluffy and over-detailed, but at least you've trimmed it a bit more. After re-reading the quotation, I can understand why you want to keep it. One issue I see is that it "foreshadows" becuase of the last sentence, almost disrupting the chronological flow. But without that last part, it is just a redundant unneeded repetition of what is said in the prose. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She commented that although the album was intended to have a March 2005 release date, she wanted to explain the title because it had leaked out to the media earlier than she had anticipated." – this sentence is a bit unclear. The first clause does not contrast with the second one at all. How about cutting the first clause and getting to the point? The first clause would work if the album was never released in March ultimately.
  • The DJ Envy quotation does not seem to be in the right section. It's a critical opinion made by someone who was not part of the project.
  • "Though" should be "although", and "hip-hop" is "hip hop"."
  • Joey Guerra has a Wikipedia article, so you can link that. Also, I don't see the usefulness of his quotation in the Composition section. It adds very little to our understanding of the album's music and themes.
  • "Strong" here is POV and reflects the reviewer's opinion: "The song's strong bassline and chord progression are aligned with piano and string notes."
  • "The 'broken-hearted lament for love',[21] features finger-snaps, kick drums, and a strong piano-driven melody" – Why "the"? There is also a missing "it" after the comma.
  • Perhaps "late pastor" works better here instead of "now deceased pastor". And what is a "full range of gospel background vocalists"?
  • There is some awkward diction in the Release section, such as "throughout" in "throughout most European countries" and "transported". Maybe "transported to record vendors" could be written simply as "made available"?
  • Twista does not need to be introduced as "American rapper" in that section if you've already introduced him above.
  • WRT the VMA performance, just get to the point, instead of stating that she will be on the roster, and where the award ceremony was held.
  • Went on to say" is wordy. Try "added" instead.
  • "Apart from its critical and commercial success," – not needed.
  • The first time you mention someone like Jozen Cummings, you can use his first name. But use only use the surname of the person in following instances.
  • I know this gets repetitive, but you have to make sure you tell the readers what the certifications mean in terms of shipments. You can use varied wording to make it less boring.
  • The tables need to be formatted per WP:ACCESS.
    • Lol. I was away for a while and really don't know how to do this :/ Care to help with this one? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, we don't really get much from the boxed quote at all either.
  • Also, this would probably work better with "In early 2008" and past tense "stood" instead: "By early 2008, the album's British sales stand at over 621,352 units."
  • "Song of the decade" should have an inline citation in the lead. Citation should come after the period.
  • Some quotations are just a repetition of what is already implied, like this one: "It was 'just one of those little things that I've kept for myself in an attempt to have some delineation between a public persona and a private life.'"
  • When an artist is interviewed by a magazine, website, etc. we say "interview for", not "with". One more: "In an interview with the Associated Press".
  • "The Emancipation of Mimi's first song, 'It's Like That', was written and produced by Carey and Jermaine Dupri." – the use of possessive here is odd.
  • "'Get Your Number' was written and produced by Carey and Dupri, and features the latter as a musical guest on the track." – need to be more specific. The producer is obviously a guest. But here, what is being implied by "guest" is different. Do you mean "guest vocalist"? "included" should be present tense.
  • Does the Ultra Platnum Edition really need its own subsection?
    • I think so. It's only a sub-section. If you don't agree, what would you recommend?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean that the subheading does not seem to be necessary as it just breaks up the section into small parts. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what you would rather see there? They are both different versions that warrant their own little subsection. I can't just mesh them together.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the Singles section is that it dives into too much detail, when the respective singles have their own articles. For example, we don't need separate critic opinions and in-depth chart trajectory information. Just a brief summary of the song's reception is good enough. As for the non-single charting songs, a brief mention that these two songs charted on the Hot R&B chart is good enough, IMO. This sounds trivial: "It became the first time and only time in Billboard history that a female artist occupied the top two spots on the Hot 100."
    • I trimmed it. I removed critical commentary which doesn't really belong there, and removed redundant info on the weaker charters.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a bit more, I think. For example the Ehrlich quotation seems superfluous, and this—"and her second longest after 'One Sweet Day' (1996), which spent a record sixteen weeks at number one."—is getting a bit too off-topic. And this does not seem notable: "and the top twenty in France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the promotion section, avoid writing about live performances of just one song from the album, as they are not directly intended to promote the album. Overall, this section (minus the Tour subsection) seems a bit over-detailed as it goes into detail loosely related to the album, such as performances of one or two songs. See if it can be trimmed just a little so that it flows much nicer. After all, what we're looking for are promotional campaigns dedicated to the album, not necessarily any live performances of album tracks. Still the list of "We Belong Together" performances...
    • I understand what you're implying, but as a music editor, you do know that the artist does promote a singlem and by that promoting the album/ I really have no other way of introducting this. Also, I did as you advised and significantly trimmed this section again. Hope it's enough!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... I don't think the "We Belong Together"-only performances are that relevant, because they are just for promotion of that song particularly. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not listing only "We Belong Together" performances... I listed all major promotional events for the album and what Carey sang. That song happened to have been a regular. Would you rather I call the section "Live performances"?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this gets repetitive, but you have to make sure you tell the readers what the certifications mean in terms of shipments. You can use varied wording to make it less boring.
  • There may be a case of over-linking in the lead sentence. Do we need to link "singer" and "songwriter"? It seems a bit excessive. Missed "songwriter"?
  • Does the replacement ref say "comeback album" or just "comeback"?
  • There's something about using "as of" with an old date that makes a sentence seem outdated. For example, "as of early 2008", "as of April 2008" and "as of August 2010". You could reword them to "By April 2008", etc. Be careful of tense with "by". For example, this should be past perfect: "By April 2008, The Emancipation of Mimi has sold over 12 million copies worldwide." Also, this would probably work better with "In early 2008" and past tense "stood" instead: "By early 2008, the album's British sales stand at over 621,352 units."
  • There are many redundant phrases throughout the article that should be picked out to tighten the prose. Examples include "pervading", "a variety of" (this one works in the Structure and style section however, as removing it would make the sentence vague), "several times", "several examples of", "range of", "to the public" and the often dreaded "also".
  • "On a later date, she met the Twista backstage at one of his shows." – the Twista? This rapper must be a legend if we have to refer to him with "the", hehe. Let's tone it down with the subtler "rapper". (that was probably just a typo) I see another typo error here: "Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine praised the its lyrics and beat". You should introduce Twista in that sentence with "rapper", etc.
    • It refers to him as "the rapper" in the very next sentence, so I think it should be okay this way now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can be a bit confusing to readers who may not know that Twista is a rapper. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma usage is inconsistent, WRT whether you use it after "In [country]" and "In [year]". Check for the serial comma usage to (in a list of three or more items, be consistent on use of a comma before "and".)
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In some instances, you use a comma after opening a sentence with "In [insert country here]", and in some instances you don't, likewise with years. For example, "In 2006, Carey embarked on her sixth concert tour, The Adventures of Mimi," versus "In 2006 Carey won 'Best Contemporary R&B Album' for The Emancipation of Mimi". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this one was taken care of.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still see some instances with a serial comma, and some without. You might want to have another look. For example, in the Release section, there aren't serial commas. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid fused participles: "—ing" words that proceed a noun. They can be awkward in some areas. (e.g. "with critics billing", "Carey celebrating", "with Carey's performance taking","with prices ranging") There's another one: "which found the singer experimenting"
    • The fix (which experimented) is ungrammatical because it was Carey who expeirmented with the tunes. I'm trying to think of a suggestion, but I'm having trouble too. Pardon me, does the Billboard source actually say anything about this? If so, where? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid inline citations not following punctuation.
    • I don't quite follow you. Care to give me an example to work with?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here for example: "On April 4, 2005, the album was released to the public in Australia[33] and New Zealand[34] and throughout most European countries." Notice that the citations are not placed after a comma, period, etc. I've seen this done in many other articles, but stylistically it isn't preferred. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took care of this one.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed "New Zealand", although I think that is because there isn't a citation for "throughout most of Europe". You could place a comma after "New Zealand". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now "Australia" is the issue. Tell you what: what about having both citations at the end of the sentence. Since it's only two, I don't think it will be very confusing. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the bibliography really necessary for one footnote (ref 177)? Why not merge them? And the external link too. It's already in one of the references above. The ref needs a page number now.
  • "the idea was that it's better to keep it more raw. Most of the ballads were done completely live, with me singing at the same time the musicians were in the room." – the first part is unnecessary, as we are told this in the prose. I think you mistakenly kept the part that as unnecessary?
  • There seem to be a few instances where you say that a song/album is Carey's most successful. Are these sourced?
    • Do you have any specifics for me? I mean I could find you a source 1,2,3 that the album and songs were her most successful (commercially and critically) in several years.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Emancipation of Mimi was Carey's best-received album in years." and "The Emancipation of Mimi became Carey's most commercially successful album of the 2000s." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, how to source something like this. It's obvious. Look at the certifications of her albums post 99's Rainbow and compare their Metacritic to TEOM. And yes, already several sources in the article refer to it as her best album in years.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't mind "The album was critically/commercially successful" because that is summarizing from what's sourced, but the statements in the article are quite powerful (most successful album in years/the decade). If they can be cited, it would be much better. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Certification denotes number of shipments, not copies sold. Perhaps I'm forgetting something? Also, this too: "The Emancipation of Mimi was Carey's best-received album in years." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a small point, but when you say "began writing" or have any verb + participle structure, the participle implies a habitual action. In this case, we are referring to one thing in particular, just the writing of the album. So you would say "Carey began to write and produce". Also, how do you begin to write an album "throughout" a year?
  • Avoid colloquialisms, such as "bumped into", and archaic language like "atop".

I'll stop there. I hope this list does not come out as too daunting. Due to the length of this review, I may move resolved concerns to the talk page. Have you gotten a strong copy editor to look over this article yet? You haven't had a peer review in quite some time either. You've done great work Nathan; I don't want my review to discourage you. I just don't want this FAC to turn into an enormous PR, if you understand. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for being thorough WP, I had no idea you were such a grammar pro :P I fixed everything and more from the list, and only left few comments on areas where we can maybe compromise or you can explain it a little better. And don't worry, FACs are supposed to look like this, otherwise they don't look thorough ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses on some points (and not cluttering up the long list with "Done"s after every other point, heh). Oh, and speaking of grammar, be careful here, "the song was name the 'most successful song of the 2000s decade' by Billboard." I would also like to point out that the use of the phrase "the song" is a bit too dense in the Songs and lyrics section, and one instance near the end of the Promotion section reads poorly because of the repetition. And I apologize to bombard with another concern, but here's a major one I'd forgotten: I feel that there are bit too many quotations in this article. They disrupt the flow, TBH. Keep the more special and important ones, and paraphrase/remove the others. But so far, you're right, we're making some good progress. I'll try to move some resolved concerns to the talk page later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I know its pretty annoying. So I really think I got every single one of your concerns, even the above ones :) Only one left to question are the "excessive" quotes. Care to give me an example of section? Because I don't really see the disruption. PS. thanks for the charts, you're quick :) Also, last thing. From here on please re-list any outstanding concerns below us, that way we can navigate the remaining issues more easily (and there'll be much less of em' ;)). --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved resolved comments to the talk page. There are some other points left unaddressed, or not fully addressed yet. If I thought you would be unsure why a point had not been moved to the talk page, I left a note in italics. Regarding the quotation use, it's a bit too heavy in the Titling and development section, and the Composition section. The reviews section could be copy edited too, but since this is a section about the, well, reviews, there's gonna be some quotations. You could paraphrase the more factual ones, and remove the redundant (nonadditive) quotes. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reviews. I switched some around, but I don't think it's reasonable to paraphrase everything or remove them. I mean, we are told to not be vague and say "who" made this remark. Additionally, there really aren't that many. Like 3 in those sections you listed. And the review section really does paraphrase, anymore and we'll hurting the article IMO. Thanks, check out the changes.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to remove every quotation. I'd just like you to reassess the value and necessity of many of the quotations, like this one: "It ended up being this party, where Nelly was in one room and Snoop in the other, and we made a couple of records together." Can't this be easily paraphrased for a more concise presentation? This is what I mean. I do like quotations here and there because they add voice and life to an article, but not too much. It just makes the flow a bit unpleasant and tiresome. I hope that helps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay WP, I think everything is done. I removed quite a few quotes and paraphrased instead. Additionally, I replaced the successful stuff with "highest selling release in the US in a decade" -> sourced by the fact that since Daydream (1996), she hadn't experienced higher sales (check out the source :)). Please continue moving resolved comments to the talk page, it makes navigation much easier.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During my work on "Love the Way You Lie", PR reviewers questioned the use of a few quotations that purely compliment another artist and do not seem to have much that is insightful, coming off as crufty. I feel this may fit into the category: "In an interview for AllHipHop, Carey described working with Pharrell: 'I feel like he had me in a different arena from what I am used to chord-wise – he is very creative yet has a young sensibility. It was really different experience for me'." What can we extract from this? The quotation regarding "It's Like That" however is understandable, as it tells us about its emotional significance to Carey. However, I'm surprisedthat we aren't told briefly what the song is about, if it meant so much too her. Think about that maybe? Overall, the prose is looking much better due to the trimming and paraphrasing. I see a lot of "the song"s have been amended. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1). The experimenting thing was fixed, and I added a new source for it since the Billboard one only covered the first half of the line. 2). Not certifications. There is a Billboard source that list the soundscan sales of all her albums. So there you see that since 1995, that is her best selling album (in the US). 3). I got the rest of them. As for adding more info on "ILT". The idea is that its her expression of freedom and set the bar for the "emancipation". I can't find exact sources for this, but I think we've got a good enough picture. Take a look now :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reducing the quotations. We've almost addressed the entire list. Just a little more. Regarding the source, are we on the same page? Am I looking at the wrong ref: ref 110 for the first sentence in the Commercial performance section? Also, citing Metacritic for the Reviews section assertion is a bit of a stretch. It is a somewhat subjective conclusion reached from some somewhat objective aggregated scores. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Check now. It's ref 1. Should solve the problem. As for the Metacritic, it is a bit of a stretch, but for what you're asking, I really don't have another option. It's just the blatant truth.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should try phrasing it more objectively, like "TEOM received a higher average Metacritic score than previous albums by Carey, with 64 out of 100 ('generally favorable reviews')." The problem with this sentence is that it won't mean much to readers who don't know what Metacritic is or does. That's why I would prefer the more general "The album received favorable reviews from critics". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think we're done :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep missing two points. ;) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting clean: I think we're making good progress, so I'd like to follow up with some more comments.
  • "Carey's unprecedented $100-million recording contract. The company paid her $50 million to part ways." – is this US dollars? This should be clarified.
  • The more I read the Titling and development section, the more I think it should just be called "Titling".
  • "After discussing her collaboration with Traxter, he revealed that he had already written down lyrics," – pardon my bad memory, but is "he" Twista"?
  • "Stylistically, critics considered the album Carey's most diverse record in years, one that highlighted many different production choices and techniques.[9]" – I think this is more suitable for the Reception section.
    • I actually disagree on this one. "highlighted many different production choices and techniques" is key to what is discussed in this and the next section (production, different styling etc.)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine. I see where you're coming from. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not forcing image size is generally preferred, unless enlarging te image is especially important. Otherwise, readers should be able to choose image size via preferences.
  • "Its lyrics are arranged in a celebratory manner:" – what do you mean by "arranged in a celebratory manner"?
  • "Penned by Carey and Dupri, "We Belong Together" was the album's second commercial release. Lyrically described as a "broken-hearted lament for love",[2] it features finger-snaps, kick drums, and a strong piano-driven melody.[2] Carey composed the gospel-influenced ballad "Fly Like a Bird" with James Wright." – repetitive sentence strucutre.
  • "Described as "a musical oddity", it features 'strange instrumentation, weird melodic shifts, hectic drum patterns and a bed of synths.'" – that's someone else's opinion.
    • I don't quite understand. Yes, its a critics opinion and observation on the song's instrumentation.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. You should probably attribute to the critic in the text. Personally, I'm not really a fan of acclaim/criticism in Composition sections, which are supposed to discuss the album's contents from a neutral perspective. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the reference in the article. I would see where your coming from WP, but he's not acclaiming or criticizing the song at all: "a musical oddity", and characterized the production as "strange instrumentation, weird melodic shifts, hectic drum patterns and a bed of synths." To me, this is just observation of the song's instruments, production etc).--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for clarifying. I will resume my review. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "onto" is right here: "Lyrically, the protagonist makes sexual advances onto a romantic interest with the line" (although I can't decide myself which preposition works best)
  • "When interpreting the lyrics in the female role, they describe "a shy woman who doesn't need to say anything at all to get a man's attention.'" – who are "they"?
  • More colloquialisms, such as "ex-flame". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Mine Again' was not released as a single in the US in 2005, but peaked at number 73 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart due to high sales and sufficient airplay.[16] Similarly, "So Lonely" reached number 65 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart due to limited airplay on certain R&B stations." – cut "in the US in 2005" if it was not released as a single at all.

Sorry I couldn't post anymore; I'm a bit busy in real life (projects, etc.), but I'll try and be more thorough tomorrow. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During the following week, she performed 'We Belong Together' at the 2005 BET Awards, and appeared at the annual VH1 Save the Music special, filmed live on April 17." – how do you film something live? Do you mean "broadcasted live" maybe?
  • Sentence lacks logical coherence: "On June 4, she performed at the annual Macy's Fourth of July Parade, and again the following week at 2005 annual MTV Movie Awards." Try rearrangeing the words.
  • How are the ticket prices relevant?
    • This is the only one I don't agree with. I think its important to note. Relevancy? I don't understand how you wouldn't see how it fits into this section.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may be wrong. What I mean is why is the information noteworthy? It seems like trivia to me. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, listing them is just as relevant as reporting she played to 80,000 in Tunis, or the Hong Kong cancellations. The concerts didn't happen in the end, so why report it? I mean you can kind of pick at any piece of information in general. If it wouldn't bother you too much, I'd prefer to keep this ;P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess relevance was the wrong thing to ask for, but noteworthiness isn't. I, a reader, see it as trivia, (kind of like how when we write about a song or album, we don't state the iTunes price, even though it is sourceable). But I'm fine either way. I'm looking forward to continuing my review. Best. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As a third-party reader, I respect your opinion. Maybe my eyes are a bit foggy towards the article. I have removed it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tour received a warm critical reaction from critics and concert goers, many of whom praised the quality of Carey's vocals, as well as the production as a whole." – what is meant by the production of the tour as a whole?
  • "The tour's largest audiences were in Tunis, where Carey played to more than 80,000 people during the span of two concerts." – I don't think "largest audiences" is right here, because that number is the total from two concerts. For all we know, there could have been 20 people at one show and 7980 at the other.
  • "The performances were cancelled, however, after tickets went on sale." – the sentence makes me think that they were cancelled because the tickets went on sale. Suggest: "Although tickets had gone on sale, the performances were cancelled." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say: " Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic called the album a "highly crafted piece of dance-pop" and "relative comeback" for Carey, despite it not being as smooth as he thought it should be." – what is meant by "smooth" here?
  • If possible, avoid the phrase "the fact that".
  • Be consistent with dashes. Either use an em dash or an en dash surrounded by spaces. Even if different quotations use different styles, they should all be formatted the same.
    • I never really got the difference or what em or en dashes are. Care to elaborate?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Em dashes are longer ("—") whereas en dashes are shorter ("–"). The former is used in sentences to separate clauses and phrases, and the latter is used in things like ranges (eg. "1990–2000") and reference titles. However, en dashes can be used in place of em dashes as long as there is a space on each side of it (eg. "Carey is the following – a great vocalist, a role model and an influential woman.") Here is the issue: some sources will use en dashes, some will use em dashes and others will use hyphens. But a Wikipedia article should stick to only either em dashes or en dashes, regardless of what's in the quotation. The choice of which one to use is an editorial one (you decide), but the style must be consistent. Hope that helps; if you're still unsure, feel free to ask. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ORDINAL, comparable quantities, numbers should be consistently written as words or numerals. This should be applied for chart positions and magazine top-10 lists. They should altogether have one consistent format.
    • Can you give me an example? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clearer, for example, you have "number 43" (numerals) and "number 21" in the Awards and nomiations section but "number thirteen" (words) in the Commercial performance section. Chose consistency. Come to think of it, the rule may apply to sales figures as well, but I'm not sure, so you can leave that for now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Carey received the Bambi in recognition of over 100,000 units of The Emancipation of Mimi in Germany..." – shipment or sales? Is this told? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delegates and nominator: I'm a bit busy right now IRL, but I should be able to revisit within the next few days or so. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only need to say "United States" twice: once in the lead, and again in the body. Every other time, abbreviate to "US". The same goes for the United Kingdom (UK). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost done here: another look won't hurt! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2001, Carey had experienced critical, commercial, and personal troubles, following the poor reception to her debut film Glitter (2001) and her subsequent hospitalization." – following the poor reception to her subsequent hospitalization? Sentence needs rewording.
  • "After posting a troubling letter on her official site, Carey checked into a hospital in Connecticut, citing an 'emotional and physical breakdown'". – it's not the letter that was troubling, so this is the wrong adjective. And what is meant by "citing", because that does not seem like the right word?
    • Hmm. I mean it is the contents of the letter that were "troubling". And citing, any other suggestions? This one doesn't strike me as problematic.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that means that the contents of the letter caused her distress literally, which isn't true. You could say something like "expressive letter". As for "citing", I would recommend "because of" and remove the comma before "citing". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For The Emancipation of Mimi, Carey collaborated with a musically diverse panel of producers." – is this sourced or your personal assertion?
  • "Having intended to work with Kanye West in the past, the pair collaborated on what became 'Stay the Night'." – there is a dangling modifier here: the sentence implies that "the pair had intended to work with Kanye West", and that doesn't make sense.
  • Is linking to "beat" necessary?
  • Another dangling modifier: "After playing the material to him, Twista revealed that he had written down lyrics for a song"
  • by "their contributions produced", do you simply mean "they produced"? Either way, "contributions" is not the best word to use.
  • "'I am so grateful I went to Atlanta,' Carey later reminisced about her experience with Dupri." – this seems like an unnecessary quotation. Would this paraphrasing be accurate: "Carey was glad she had met with Dupri in Atlanta"? Overall, I don't think this piece of information is very strong for inclusion. It's just repetition and uninformative words. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Mine Again' was not released as a single, but peaked at number 73 on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart due to high sales and sufficient airplay." – I thought only singles got airplay in the US.
  • "Carey embarked on a promotional tour in support of the album, beginning in Germany at the 2005 Echo Awards." – is this the same tour that is mentioned below? And when was this? Month and year?
  • "concert goers" sounds a bit informal. Is there a more formal way to say that?
  • For consistency's sake, I would also format sales figures consistently (words vs. numeral). For example, you've got "five million" but "12 million". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed them all. As for the above concern, I've kept it spelled out for single digit (one million, eight million). For 12, 7.7 I've kept it numerical.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Aaron[edit]

Comments
  • The Singles charts table in the Charts and certifications section needs to have the same shaded column for the year as the other tables do.
  • I don't like how all the pictures etc. are on one side. Some should be on the left, it looks too weighted to the right, some are close together too. And make the pictures smaller, they are huge!

AARON• TALK 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything else wrong tbh. Very clean looking and greta standard

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/The_Emancipation_of_Mimi/archive4&oldid=1142511478"