Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Can't Let Go (Mariah Carey song)/archive1

Can't Let Go (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Can't Let Go (Mariah Carey song)/archive1

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mariah Carey single "Can't Let Go". After five consecutive number one hits on the Billboard Hot 100, the song memorably ended her streak by peaking at a lowly number two. There are longstanding rumours that Columbia Records intentionally withdrew the song from stores just as it was about to reach number one in an effort to boost sales of the Emotions album, as well as speculation that the label's president Tommy Mottola intentionally ruined her streak to "show her who's boss" or something, but I have not seen anything strong enough to back those claims up. On the other hand, the song was a subject of a copyright lawsuit that was settled out of court. This is perhaps why Carey did not perform "Can't Let Go" during any of her tours until 2006 even though it is a favourite of hers. Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Looks good, the article contains all the sections I'd expect and I have no major concerns about the content. I have but a few suggestions:

Lead

Shorter: "..are about post-breakup sadness~~sadness after the end of a relationship.~~"
Shortened
" Carey was sued for copyright infringement in a four-year lawsuit that ended in a confidential settlement." Feels a bit incomplete, but I don't think that mentioning the `names of the claimants in the lead is necessarily due in this case. I've been struggling with how to improve the sentence with no success. Perhaps removing it from the lead is for the best?
Yeah I struggled with this one too. Given the lawsuit was dropped and there was no trial I suppose it is not notable enough to be lead-worthy. There wasn't that much coverage anyways.
"residency" I assumed this meant LV, but it might not be implicit to many non-US readers.
Added

Music

Is Evans claiming that Carey was influenced by the poem or is she the one making the connection?
Evans is making the argument
Oh, forgot about this. I think we need to rephrase, since Evans isn't claiming that Carey has read and was personally influenced by the poem, but rather that her song can be seen as an installment in an artistic tradition that can be traced back to Roman de la Rose. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added "indirectly"
"..within a pattern of heartbreak songs where a relationship is defined by how a lover thinks they lack a future without the other who has moved on." Shorten a bit if possible.
Shortened
"conjured a 'a sensation.." lose one a
Thanks for catching that

I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of book sources, many decent songs are lacking in this regard. I don't think any of my outstanding concerns preclude my Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, I really appreciate it. I have addressed your comments above. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we go with "eponymous album" or "eponymous debut album" after the rewrite to avoid repetition? Draken Bowser (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Heartfox (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

This part, (Having already garnered unsolicited airplay from American urban contemporary radio stations, Columbia), is not grammatically correct as it is saying that Columbia was receiving this unsolicited airplay. I have a similar comment for this part, (A breakup song, the lyrics), as it is referring to the lyrics as a break-up song.
Rephrased
I am not sure that File:Can't Let Go Mariah Carey.ogg needs to specifically say that it is the chorus in title. It is not necessarily wrong or bad so it does not need to be changed, but it is just not something that I normally see in a song FA so I thought it was worth pointing out to you.
I think it is useful to tell readers what part of the song the sample is from
I have a comment for this sentence: (Christine Werthman of Billboard described the video as simple and KQED's Emmanuel Hapsis thought it was boring.) I would clarify that the Billboard comment is negative as Werthman says the following, "Basic though the visuals may be". It was not immediately clear to me that this comment was supposed to be negative as "simple" could be used in a positive context.
Added "in contrast" at the beginning of the sentence to separate it from the positive reception by Nixon
In Citation 5, the album is linked in the liner notes citations, but the same is not done for Citation 13. I would be consistent with how things are linked in the citations.
Unlinked

I believe that should be everything. Wonderful work as always and I look forward to seeing what article you bring to the FAC next. Have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable feedback as always, and welcome back! Heartfox (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Cite 3 should be 'pp.'
Added

It's not.

I accidentally removed it in a subsequent edit whoops

Evans needs a page range.
Thanks for spotting that
"and contrasted it with other songs." Any particular songs? Eg, were they ones by Carey?
Clarified that this is about other artists

"... began work on her second album, Emotions (1991). After its release in June 1990 ..." There is potential confusion here as to what "its" refers to.
Rearranged this
I find the first paragraph of "Background and release" confusing. Consider reordering into chronological order.
Rearranged this
"Can't Let Go" appears as the third track on Emotions, which Columbia released on September 17, 1991." I took this to mean the release of the song, until I reread on and had to reread the paragraph. Maybe 'Columbia released Emotions on September 17, 1991, with "Can't Let Go" appearing as its third track' or similar?
Rephrased to "Columbia issued Emotions on September 17, 1991, with "Can't Let Go" as the third track."
"ended the streak when it reached number two on January 25, 1992". You need to add something like 'and failed to go any higher'.
Changed "reached" to "peaked at"

That's all. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Does the sample File:Can't Let Go Mariah Carey.ogg have a particular significance? Like, is it a particularly emblematic part of the song? Might also want to add ALT text there. Source #24 why does it single out Christine Werthman? Seems like most sources are major newspapers and dedicated magazines. Regarding Mariah Carey: Original Keys for Singers. it seems a bit weird that it's an anonymous publication? Is Nanda Lwin commonly recognized as an expert in music history? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sample is of the chorus. As the chorus repeats twice it would be the most emblematic part of the song as a whole. Further details are provided in the fair use rationale and the caption. Alt text is not used as there is no image to provide alt text for.
Werthman is singled out as she is the one who wrote the section on "Can't Let Go". I don't think it makes sense to include all the other authors when only one part is cited, so I used et al. as a compromise as it doesn't mean the article as a whole wasn't written by others.
Removed anonymous author
Nanda Lwin has been cited by Billboard, American Review of Canadian Studies, etc.

Thanks for doing both the source and image review, Heartfox (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina[edit]

I would link synthesizers and drum programming in the lead.
"experienced high airplay" I somehow find this phrasing odd; may be "received significant airplay" would read better?
"was the second release from Emotions" why not simply "the second single"?

Generally a tight article. Ippantekina (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed, thanks for the comments! Heartfox (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: does everything look okay? Heartfox (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to get back to this. Thanks for the ping. Yes, the article looks good to go! Great work as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]