Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It's a Wrap/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2023 [1].

It's a Wrap[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2009 Mariah Carey song that went viral early this year. It's hard to believe the same woman who sang "Without You" is now saying "I should crack you right in your forehead", but here we are! Thanks in advance for any comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Carey and Barry White wrote the breakup song" - this (to me at least) implies that they wrote it together, which they obviously didn't. White only gets a writing credit because it samples a song he wrote in the 1970s.
    Reworded
  • Mary J image captions needs a full stop
    Added
  • ".....Carey's fourteenth studio album Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (2014). It subsequently debuted at number 100" - word order makes it potentially sound like it was the album which debuted at number 100
    Reworded
  • "Stewart, Wright, Leon Bisquera and Monte Neuble play the keys" - "keys" is a bit slangy, I would write keyboards in full
    Added
  • All notes need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added

All should be addressed, thanks for the quick comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maxna Carta[edit]

NB: My comments are not what I consider to be mandatory to receive my support (which as a newer reviewer, I would prefer to give once other more experienced reviewers back the article) however just some initial thoughts.

  • (1a) This article is well written. The prose is engaging and of a professional standard in my opinion.
- "sales following high-profile appearances" - Does this need to be described as "high profile"? Seems redundant. No such thing as a low profile appearance on Oprah Winfrey!
Removed
- Went to correct "mispelling" of "catalog" to "catalogue" only to discover (to my horror) that catalog is an acceptable alternative spelling and does not need to be fixed
- As a style affectation, I prefer U.S. as opposed to US, however per MOS:US either is acceptable provided the same abbreviation style is used consistency which is the case here
- "and the remix was later included" - is the word "later" needed?
Removed
  • (1b) After an initial review, this article appears on its face to be comprehensive.
- Could there be a new section on concept and development? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shine_(Gwen_Stefani_song) for an example. I feel the article could be even more comprehensive with a section on this. Some of the details within background and release do cover this a little, but I am a huge fan of sub-headings as it breaks the article into digestible components and signposts to the reader.
There are only three sentences about concept and development, so I would not consider that enough to put under a separate subheading.
- Otherwise, comprehensiveness seems pretty good to me. Appears you have actually been re-writing this for six months in the sandbox which is why it's hard to find fault. Well done on a thorough re-write. I note you are also the overwhelming contributor by text added also.
Oh no, I have moved the sandbox between multiple projects lol. I have only been working on it since April 4.
  • (1c) Appears to be well researched. I am satisfied that most of the relevant coverage is explored. Consistent inline citation is used throughout where appropriate.
[9] Source integrity good. Article describes song as a "breakup" song, something that is supported by the source.
[37] as above.
[30] as above.
[43] as above.
[50] source integrity good, but if an editor described it as a highlight then maybe "highlight" should be in quotes?
The word "highlight" is used to sum up the reviewer's quote "one of the night's best"
  • (1d) This article is neutral
  • (1e) This article is stable
  • (1f) The copyvio report is solid, and the article appears to comply with copyright and be free of plagiarisim and close paraphrasing
  • (2a) Lead is good. Concise and summarises the body.
- You used "music critics" in lead then "critics" in the body. Changed to music critics for both to ensure consistency.
- I believe "music critics" should be linked to music journalism (I've done this, feel free to revert if you disagree)
  • (2b) Structure is good
  • (2c) Citations are consistent.
  • (3) Media use appears good.
  • (4) Length appears appropriate, the article stays on topic and is not unnecessarily long. Written in summary style. Comparable to other FA's for songs.

These are my initial thoughts at this time. I am leaning towards support but want to see more comments from experienced reviewers and any concerns raised addressed. Well done on a great piece of work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: thank you for the very thorough review, I have replied to your comments above. Heartfox (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Heartfox, I consider the issues I raised to be addressed. Waiting on more reviewing now. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review[edit]

  • File:Mariah Carey - It's a Wrap.png has a clearly defined purpose in the article with appropriate WP:ALT text, and it has a complete WP:FUR that justifies the inclusion of non-free media in the article.
  • Everything checks out with File:Mary J. Blige 2012.jpg. It has a clear purpose in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text, and the author and source links work. Everything on the Wikimedia Commons looks solid to me. I would include the year the photo was taken to the caption just to provide some context for readers, but this is more of a suggestion.
  • File:It's a Wrap Mariah Carey.ogg looks good to me. It has a defined purpose in the article, and it has a complete WP:FUR, which along with the caption, does a solid job in justifying how a piece of non-free media is useful for readers beyond just the prose. The sample length is appropriate, and I appreciate the caption.

Everything looks good and this FAC passes my image/media review. I did make a point about adding a year to the Mary J. Blige image, but it is not a big enough point for me to withhold passing this review. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review, but I thought I should contribute to this FAC in some way, and it is always good in my opinion to get these kinds of reviews out of the way at the start. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this! Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I am glad that I could help at least in some capacity. Thank you for your explanation by the way for this edit. Your edit summary makes sense to me, and I should have looked at the source itself to confirm for myself. This is a fun song (although I prefer others from that album), and I am glad that it has gotten more recognition and is getting the FAC treatment from you. I also liked your FAC statement as it is engaging (and I always find that difficult to do). Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "with minimal instrumentation and lyrics ...". Do you mean to say that it has minimal lyrics? If not, perhaps tweak the phrasing.
    Reworded
  • "is credited as such on "It's a Wrap" in addition to Carey." Consider deleting "as such". I think what is meant is clear from context, and I found it mildly confusing.
    Deleted
  • Why is Nick Cannon named as Heatmyzer in the lead?
    He is not credited as Nick Cannon
Fair enough. But could we be told at first mention that Heatmyzer is an alias of Cannon?
Added
  • "Music critics reviewed the song's composition and Carey's vocal performance." This seems redundant. I mean, what else would music critics do?
    Removed
  • Infobox: Why is Carey only identified by surname under "Producer(s)"?
    Added full name
  • Infobox: "Length" - is it usual to not identify the units used?
    Per Template:Infobox song, "Do not use '3 minutes and 9 seconds'"
  • "After receiving 1,600 downloads". I don't see this in the source given.
    "The tune also sold 1,000 downloads in the same period, though a 60% drop from the week before" → 1,000 + 60% = 1,600 downloads the week before
No. A 60% drop to 1,000 means 2,500 the week before.
There's a reason I'm not in university for math 💀
  • n the paragraph starting "In the remix, Blige adds" are there closing quote marks missing? (Possibly instead of the question mark?)
    Thanks for spotting that
  • "The magazine placed the remix at number 22 in their 2020 list of Carey's best songs." It may be helpful to a reader to indicate how many songs in total they listed.
    Added
  • "Kot thought the production pronounced Carey's vocal delivery." What does this mean? Ie, in what sense are you using "pronounced"?
    Reworded to "augmented"

Nice work - I think you have done this before. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. A couple of comebacks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

It seems like the article has a consistent source format, with all the key information present. Who are Zonyeé, Dominique, Carter, Lauren and Welner, Natalie? Spot-check upon request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the source review. Do you mind clarifying what your question seeks to address? Heartfox (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zonyeé, Dominique, is in a slideshow; you have to scroll to page 1 of 18 to access the author name. The other two are listed, and I corrected the latter's surname. Heartfox (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is about these individuals' credentials. I can find the other ones and their credentials (staff editor, journalist dedicated to this topic area etc.) easily but on these three I have to ask here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard, Boston Herald, and Black Entertainment Television are pretty generic (and I would say recommended) sources for music articles, and the authors may just be doing freelance work. Can you kindly point to something more specific if author credentials are an issue? Heartfox (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the lack of information on the authors that bothers me. Sometimes sources have authors of varying reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Zonyeé is cited for their critical review of a song, as is Carter for their critical review of a concert. As these are opinions rather than extraordinary claims, I do not see reliability is an issue. Weiner has a Billboard email address on her author page, and Billboard has clear editorial processes, so I do not believe reliability is an issue with that author either. Best, Heartfox (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that has me convinced on Weiner. For Zonyee, I can't find much of a web presence - are they important enough to be mentioned specifically? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zonyeé themselves wasn't really a factor in determining whether to mention, but rather the publisher. It is mostly cited to include commentary from Black Entertainment Television (i.e. commentary from a Black-oriented outlet on an Black artist, Mariah Carey) so as to provide nuance to the critical reception and avoid WP:BIAS. Heartfox (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: does everything check out? Heartfox (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I am wondering if a little more context should be given to E=MC², specifically with the sentence about the promotion ending. The paragraph only mentions "Touch My Body", and I could see some people misreading it was the album's promotion ended there even though there were other singles "Bye Bye", "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time", "I Stay in Love". I understand focusing on "Touch My Body" due to its success. But given the placement of the last sentence, I could see some people misreading "shortly thereafter" as right after this single's release and not further down the line. Apologies. This likely super nitpick-y.
    Reworded
    Thank you for the revision. That is much clearer in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this bit, (Universal Music Group cancelled Angels Advocate for unknown reasons). Did you find any coverage suggesting sales and/or chart performances were contributing factors? From what I remember, the album did not perform particularly great and the singles (outside of "Obsessed") also did not perform particularly well. That being said, it could just be fan theories and speculation, but I thought I should still ask you anyway to get your opinion.
    I could not find anything, but "Angels Cry" and "Up Out My Face" did not get any US radio airplay, so the label was probably like why bother at this point. If the album flopped and the remixes flopped, let's just move on to a safe Christmas album lol
    Thank you for checking. I agree that the way both those singles were treated made it rather clear that the label did not want to put anymore time, energy, or money into the album and Merry Christmas II You was a clear attempt to course-correct and get at least some guaranteed success. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another clarification question. When I listen to the song, it opens with the sound of a drink being poured. I was just curious if any sources discuss this? I doubt it, but it just caught my attention and I wanted to ask.
    I could not find anything that mentions that
    Fair enough. That is what I thought, but I appreciate that you checked. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. All the comments above are incredibly nitpick-y so apologies for that. The article is already in solid shape so I was not able to find anything major to discuss here. Hopefully, my review will provide the push the FAC needs to reach promotion. By the way, I do agree with you that the Zonyeé BET source is high-quality and appropriate for a FA. Either way, once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time reviewing the article, Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your very prompt responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (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/It%27s_a_Wrap/archive1&oldid=1157944805"