Wikipedia:Peer review/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emancipation of Mimi[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to soon take it to FA. I believe it is very broad in its coverage, and very extensive. I would appreciate all types of recommendations, regarding, well pretty much anything :) If there are ref issues, prose issues or any (hopefully not) larger scale issues, then please comment here. Thanks to all!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Initial thoughts about the article:
  • The credits and personnel section probably needs expansion. Allmusic is a good source, but we probably shouldn't limit the section to the incomplete list they provide. I own a copy of the album, and the liner notes lists a multitude of mixers, engineers, recorders and musicians (keyboardists, bass players etc etc), and background singers for each track, that this section completely overlooks. You can probably look into that if you are able to.
    • Okay, this is the only thing I did not address. I don't have a physical copy of the CD, so I'm not sure how to approach this one :S--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of inconsistencies in the sourcing/formatting, and there is a certain FAC reviewer who is revered (feared lol) for her ability to spot even the most minute inconsistency. Some examples: Some news sources use the cite news template (eg ref 24), while other news sources do not (Washington Post, Boston Herald etc etc). And even then, refs 24 and 104 are from the same publication (USA Today) but use different citation templates. (For the record, {{citenews}} gives the publisher in parenthesis while {{cite web}} does not. Generally, newspaper sources, even when they're online, will take the former, while regular websites/webzines and the like will use the latter.) If I remember correctly, you need to list the location of the paper's publishing if it's not included in the title: The Guardian may need the "location" parameter of the "cite news" template filled, while The New York Times does not. Also, as per the template guidelines, you're supposed to write out the month to avoid ambiguity (i.e. June 21, 2011 and not 6-21-2011). Also, the Rolling Stone references are a bit inconsistent: ref 22 is not wikilinked, but ref 76 and 132 are. Either link on first occurrence, or all the time, or not at all. This goes for other sources as well. Small detail, but trust me, you will get called out for it. For ref 190, is it a book? If so, your pagination is missing. For the allmedia sources, there are times when the publisher is listed "Allmusic. All media guide. rovi corporation" and times when it's "all music, rovi corporation. all media guide"-- needs consistency.
    • Okay, I went through every reference and believe all of these issues were fixed. Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations, pagination, and writing out of the dates haven't been addressed. Ref 59 has incorrect publisher, ref 95 uses cite web when it should use cite news. Ref 70 is confusing. Is it Billboard or Allmusic? Ref 8 and 114 uses citenews then citeweb, even though they're the same publication. I know I'm being picky, but let's not give anyone anything to complain about when it gets to FAC, and IMO in a featured article, everything needs to be done to the letter. Orane (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose wise, there is inconsistency in the intro. The second sentence reads "The album was a complete musical departure from her previous effort, Charmbracelet (2002), which was heavily influenced by pop and adult contemporary music genres" while a sentence in the second paragraph reads "[TEOM] continued Carey's calculated mixture of pop ballads and R&B beats". And further down wrote how songs revived her reputation as a balladeer. I get what you're saying, but if they're both heavily pop-influenced with some ballads, I wouldn't make the general conclusion that the album was a "complete departure" from Charmbracelet. Also, titling and development is a bit repetitive in the sense that you incorporated a quote within the text in the first paragraph, but repeated the same quote in it's entirety in the second paragraph. Probably just a matter of personal taste, but slightly repetitive nonetheless. The three block quotes in the "music and lyrics" section strike me as a bit much, but they're informative, so you may not need to worry about them; I don't know how others may feel.
  • Other than those concerns, beautiful prose, amazing and comprehensive article. I'm very proud :). Orane (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the redundant blockquote, and think I've resolved these inconsistent prose issues. Thanks for your comments thus far Orane, they have been a great help :) So far, I think I've done them all except the first.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • I strongly recommend that you heed Orane's excellent advice about source formatting ;-)
    • Thanks again for stopping by Nikki :) Funny how he mentioned you without knowing I already invited you (you are more feared than you knew :P)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use contractions outside of quotes
  • The article's a bit on the long side - it might help to be slightly more focused on the essential elements that you want to convey to the reader
    • I tried to remove an extra blockquote, but I hope the length won't be an issue. I know its long and extensive, but I really tried to not wander off too much.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly not in close proximity. Also check for other manual of style issues
    • Okay, so I under-liked and made sure nothing is over-linked twice in the same section or close proximity. I noticed before two things in the lead were linked on paragraph apart :S lol--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some phrasings are a bit unclear or awkward - for example, "They complimented its broader vision, which incorporated a variety of genus and beats, unlike her previous release that harbored on slower and more contemporary melodies". You might try reading the article out loud and changing any phrase you stumble on
    • Okay, this one is fixed. I read on and don't think there are more of these.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:TEOM_cover.jpg: FUR should mention that the image is used in the main infobox. In general, your FURs could be better developed. Also, sound samples should note the length of the original song to aid verification of the <10% rule
    • I added a better FUR for the music samples (I believe). I'm not sure though what you mean about the album cover.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions should meet similar standards for prose and sourcing as article text
    • Okay, so I've expanded the captions for the music samples, and added refs where needed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all sources used can be considered high-quality reliable sources, and that you are prepared to justify any that may be borderline.
    • I know you don't like About.com and the Yahoo blog (In FAC, we do not even speak your name ;P), but its written by Paul Grein, editor of Billboard. Aside from those two, I think all the others are high-quality (try me ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. I've got this review watchlisted, so feel free to ask questions here if there's something that's unclear. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • It helped a lot Nikki. thanks for your comments thus far. Both you and Orane have helped a lot! I think everything is addressed, forgive me if I missed something. Please feel free to come back and take another look :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nikki. I have a preemptive question, one which I would like to clear up before the FAC. Are the sources used for the Release dates an issue? Am I going to get issues from those? Also, Can you see if an sources don't look good? I think they are all up to par :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general there are still issues with citation formatting, but I'm guessing you're asking about reliability? If so, notwithstanding your note above, here are the sources I would question if/when they appear at FAC: [1], [2], [3]. For the Release dates section: it would be better if you can find non-commercial sources to support the information, but if that is not possible you should prefer major retailers (like Amazon or iTunes) to lesser-known ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Nikki. Even though I know you've been explained the authenticity of the first two sources, I've switched them for RS and Billboard. Now the last one, InfoDisc. I don't know which Wikipedia page, maybe you know, but on the page where it lists all the countries and their reliable/usable/official certification/charting websites are listed. InfoDisc (100% sure) is listed there for France. That is the only one still there. As for the Release Dates, I've removed the ones that didn't have iTunes or Amazon as a source (4 countries). Aside from that, can you tell me some formatting issues that are still present? Thanks :) BTW, how do the FURs and captions look now?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what page you're talking about for InfoDisc, but you could try searching WP:RSN or music FACs to see if you can find a link. (As for the other two sources: with good justification and reasoning here or at FAC, you can include the Yahoo source if you want to. I'm much more reluctant about the About source, but I wouldn't oppose over that issue.) From a quick look at images: captions are better but a couple still have grammar issues; purpose of use for cover image should mention it's used in the main infobox; samples are too long based on the numbers given - samples should be no longer than 10% of the complete song. Some examples of citation formatting issues: NBCUniversal is wikilinked in FN 116 but not 114 (and why is it in parentheses when for example CBC is not?); Slant Magazine should be italicized, as should Stylus; FN 31 appears to be malformatted; a bunch of Allmusic refs in the 140s footnote range have bracketing issues; CD titles shouldn't be bolded; FNs 152 and 155 don't have the same formatting as earlier references to the same root source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for those. So yes, my friend fixed some chart positions etc. and didn't format them correctly, those were all done yesterday. All have been fixed. Also, I switched the InfoDisc source for the official SNEP one. Lastly, I reduced the samples to 23 seconds each, around 7 seconds shorter :) I think we are getting there Nikki :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments from Sarastro

I've had a look at the lead only and there are several points I would pick out if this were at FAC. I don't really have time for a full review at the moment, but I may be able to comment further. I would recommend a good copy-edit from someone familiar with FACs. This is what I noticed in the lead:

  • "The album was a musical departure from her previous effort, Charmbracelet (2002), which was heavily influenced by pop and adult contemporary music genres. The Emancipation of Mimi, while incorporating similar vocal and production styles, focused on several R&B-related genres, ranging from 1970s retro gospel to soul.": I think much of this is over detailed for the lead and I find it a little meaningless. Cut it right back, for example: "The album shared similar vocal and production styles to her previous release, Chamrbracelet (2002), but had significant R&B influences, including gospel and soul." I don't think the point about a departure needs making here as it is made in the following paragraph and it doesn't need labouring.
  • "Additionally" is used four times in the lead alone.
  • Incorporating/incorporated used 3 times in the lead.
  • "Additionally, the album features various heavy beat-driven tracks, even being dubbed a "party record"": I'm not sure this sentence is necessary as the general reader will not really understand what this means. Most tracks of any kind of music are "beat driven" to some extend. And who dubbed it a party record? This needs attributing in the text. Using "even" here does not follow as the two clauses of the sentence are not obviously connected.
  • "Musically, the album became one of Carey's most diverse bodies of work, structured to be a celebratory album, and more dance-oriented than any of her previous releases.": Long, run-on sentence. What does "diverse bodies of work" mean? It may seem obvious to you but spell it out. How can an album be structured to be a celebration? Maybe rephrase to something like: "Musically, the album contains a wider range of genres than much of Carey's work but is heavily dance-oriented. "
  • "Additionally, it continued Carey's calculated mixture of pop ballads and R&B beats, however incorporating other genres, such as in "Fly Like a Bird", where she fused gospel and soul, alongside religious and God-yearning lyrics." This is a muddled sounding sentence. The "however" is ungrammatical and should go. What is a "calculated mixture"? I assume you mean she deliberately included contrasting styles in the songs, but you need to spell it out clearly. I really dislike the use of "beats" like this because it does not sound like an encyclopaedia. I'm not sure what God-yearning lyrics are and I suspect "religious" would work fine, but I don't think so much detail about one track is merited here. What about: "It continued Carey's trend of mixing pop and R&B influences/genres/styles [not sure which would work best], but included other influences/genres/styles such as gospel and soul." Although, as the point about gospel and soul was already made in the first paragraph, I might leave out the end of this sentence from "but" onwards.
  • "On the album, secondary musical talents lent their vocals on several tracks, appearing as featured artists; of them were Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista and Nelly, who also served as a writer on "To the Floor".": Maybe: "On the album, other artists contributed vocals on some tracks, appearing as featured artists; these included Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista and Nelly, who also served as a writer on "To the Floor"."
  • "The album received generally positive reception": Missing "a" after received.
  • "...with some critics calling..." This is not good prose; using a noun followed by an -ing verb is usually frowned upon and I would recommend looking at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing and any of the prose exercises on User:Tony1's user page.
  • The album received generally positive reception, with some critics calling it Carey's return to form, as well as the return of "the voice".: The last part of the sentence is kind of meaningless; what is "the voice"? And if it is a return to form, it may be worth saying here if she had been criticised in her recent work and why.
  • "complimented its broader vision, which incorporated a variety of genres and beats, unlike her previous release that harbored on slower ballads. " I think we get the idea by now that there is greater variety in this album and it doesn't need saying for a third time.
  • "Several singles were commissioned from the record, some serving as worldwide releases, while others as airplay-only and in certain territories." Something missing here; at least one verb is missing from the last part of the sentence after "while".
  • "in several worldwide markets": Does this not just mean in several countries? If so, keep it simple and say just that!
  • "Additionally, it received generally positive critical response, a feat that was not frequent with Carey's singles at the time." A bit convoluted; what about "The song received a generally positive critical response, unusual at the time for Carey's singles."
  • "staying there for fourteen non-consecutive weeks": I appreciate the precision of this, but it is a little clumsy and you may need to find a better way of saying it.
  • "and achieved strong international charting" I'm not a fan of using "chart" as a verb, but if you want to use it, maybe "it charted strongly throughout the world" (avoiding two words ending -ly with internationally).
  • I haven't read the rest of the article, and would echo the comments above about length. However, I notice the use of reviews looks quite strong and there is a wide variety of sources used; I know I've raised this issue before and that looks good here (without looking in depth). I also think the level of research and content is very comprehensive. I think the main points to work on are tightening the prose, particularly to remove unnecessary words and phrases and to make the meaning clearer. I hope this helps! Good luck --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Can we possibly separate our comments by adding subheaders? This is getting lengthy and its a bit hard to browse through. --Efe (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Efe

Disclaimer: I have not read the foregoing comments, therefore mine might be repetitive.

  • The lead might be a bit too huge. Remove unnecessary facts like those details re performance of its singles. Overemphasis like "which they described as airy, thin and damaged"
  • Missing "summaries" on the critical side of the album, which gave Mariah a myriad of awards.
  • The lead doesn't flow logically and smoothly. For example, the first two paras go this way: music -> production -> music -> production. Probably you could re-arrange the facts.
  • There are a repetition of facts in the first two paras. Perhaps you could trim them down.
  • There are redundant terms / phrasing (other editors might feel these clumsy): as several critics had criticized and questioned Carey; other artists contributed vocals on some tracks, appearing as featured artists, etc.
  • Overlinking; gospel and R&B are linked twice in the lead.
  • Beware of POVish terms like "high profile", "heralded", "pivotal", etc.

That's all for now. I'll be back the soonest I can. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Efe
  • Carey wrote and produced the entire album alongside a number of songwriters and record producers such as Jermaine Dupri, Johnta Austin and James Wright. I get the impression that it was Carey who who really wrote and produced the tracks, and she just got help from mainstream producers. In pop music, its the reverse. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is how I want it to read, because its exactly how it goes. Carey makes up most of the process, in fact I ca even explain to you her songwriting process in detail. She has a large part in it, ranging from production and lyrics, to composing ad arranging melodies.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To date, The Emancipation of Mimi has sold over 12 million copies worldwide. An example of an "outdated" date. You may specify the date the figure was released. And IMO, this might get challenged, so better add a citation from a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carey had experienced a year of critical, commercial, and personal troubles What do you mean by this statement? Personal trouble could go well, but critical trouble and commercial trouble are not so fine. Consider rephrasing this important intro sentence. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is explained in detail further into the section, but I gave a little taste as you asked.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With her consequent release in 1999, Rainbow, Carey continued this trend What trend are you referring to? --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meyer of CBS News is heavily referenced in the first paragraph. Try balancing the point of views by adding commentaries of other critics. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I noticed that too. I added two more critical commentaries and removed some of his.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I have fixed it myself. --Efe (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, there's an imbalance in the bulk of info per section. The two-paragraph "Writing and Recording" seems odds considering the bulk of information in the preceding and following paragraphs. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly do what I can with what information is available Efe. Those sections, unless you have a biography book are the most troubling to write. However, tried to add a bit more details :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music and lyrics. IMO, its bad to start a paragraph (or a section) with a critic's comment. Try it with a sentence that summarizes perhaps the whole paragraph (like a lead/topic sentence does). --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music and lyrics. That organization is fine, like following the tracklist of the album itself. However, considering the theme the album supposed to impress, the commentaries regarding it is drowned by the mixture of "music and lyrics", per se. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music and lyrics. There are unnecessary information like Cinquemani wrote that it would "blow the talent show competition away." Save them for the single/song's separate article. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singles, (one paragraph) Ultra Platinum Edition, and Promotion sections are illogically placed in the article, breaking the flow of the prose. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A section might be missing in this article. What happened after her comeback? What legacy, impact the album did to Carey's career? --Efe (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly feel any type section would be repetative over what was said throughout the article. I'm not sure its necessary IMO.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reviews: I can't see in the prose a review from Rolling Stone. Can you possibly add commentaries from UK perhaps? Anything that's outside her country. Just to give it a "worldwide scope". --Efe (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much Efe! So far you've been very helpful! I'm going to have another editor help me get the lead straightened out. Come back out the fixes I made :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Emancipation_of_Mimi/archive1&oldid=1141908166"