Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Don't Wanna Cry/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 April 2023 [1].

I Don't Wanna Cry edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mariah Carey's fourth number one single on the Billboard Hot 100. It is notable for the rift it caused between Carey and its producer Narada Michael Walden, who never collaborated on another album after 1990. Carey's future/former husband Tommy Mottola cites her lack of creative control during the production process as a reason for the eventual dissolution of their marriage! Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris edit

"reached the top ten on music charts in Canada" - multiple charts in Canada?
Yes, at the time there was one for sales-only (The Record, which was republished in Billboard's Hits of the World section) and another was airplay-only (RPM). It reached the top ten on both charts.
Thanks for clarifying - in that case I would suggest rewording slightly to "reached the top ten on both sales and airplay charts in Canada" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Heartfox (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"her 1993 marriage with Mottola ended due to his controlling nature" - this is the first mention of her marriage to Mottola, I suggest you mention earlier the fact that they had got married
Rephrased.
"The song has a similar" => "The latter song has a similar" for clarity?
Clarified.
"The First Vision (1991) presents" - clarify what this is
Clarified.
"due to the appearance of her dress and the model" - what model?
Clarified.
Notes which are not complete sentences (which is most of them) do not need full stops
Removed.
Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC

Thanks so much for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, does everything look okay? Heartfox (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ResPM edit

I noticed the article the other day after I saw a bunch of hidden single-chart categories had been removed. Although I already have an idea about why you did this, can you explain why you replaced the templates with manual citations? On most FAs I've seen—even recent ones—I haven't seen charts formatted this way. I'm just curious. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the templates are fine for regular articles, especially newer ones where it is much easier to update chart peaks by copy and pasting the same template between articles. But they are simply malformatted. Many use the chart name in what is supposed to be the publisher parameter. In my opinion this is just not proper for a featured article. This issue has been brought up by non-subject matter editors on other FACs, but nothing much ever happens. Heartfox (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Source review edit

Putting this as a placeholder. One immediate comment I have: I'm not sure if the table for the Critical reviews helpful as it only contains 2? Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, I have removed the table. Heartfox (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, will there be more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Apologies for the delay. For the time being I cannot commit to a comprehensive prose review. I might take a look at sources instead... Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are properly formatted and of high quality.
Not sure if #54's (Billboard staff) and #55's (Entertainment Weekly staff) are necessary; "et al." suffices for me
Done
Might be a personal preference, but I'd convert refs #17, #21 and #24 using {{sfn}}
Because they're only cited once, I do not see this as necessary
Italicize some publication names i.e. Songwriting Universe
Italicized.
Spotchecks: #8, #15, #21, #28, #69.

Overall very good work with the sources. Just some minor issues. Ippantekina (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: thanks for the source review. Heartfox (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing source review. Great job on the article and best of luck with this FAC! Ippantekina (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:I_Don't_Wanna_Cry_MV(1).png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. Heartfox (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

I will post a full review sometime next week. I do have one quick comment though for the moment. The "Critical reception" section seems really condensed. All of the sentences are overviews of critics's opinions, and I think it would be more beneficial to provide examples on individual critics discussed these ideas in their reviews. I just do not think the current structure is the most beneficial to readers. I agree with Ippantekina that the table here seems unnecessary as there are apparently only two review scores. It makes more sense for something like "Easy on Me" that has more review scores to put in a table. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments; I look forward to your review. I am following WP:RECEPTION guidance, "If six reviewers say X, you should report that X was a widespread opinion; there's no need to quote or name all six." The song did not receive many substantial reviews and so the critical reception section will naturally be relatively small. In fact, of the reviews from 1990–1991 there is only one that is not an album review. I pulled what I could from the 1–2 sentences available and combined them with similar comments from other reviews. The section does look weirdly short on a wide display with only 2 lines but it seems normal to me on Vector 2022. I will remove the table shortly. Heartfox (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not using a wide display, and my comments are not about this section's length. My comments were focused on the structure, which again I do not see as the most benefical to readers. I have a different interpretation of the quoted part of WP:RECEPTION. I do not take not needing to quote or name all six reviewers as not needing to name or quote any of them. The examples provided in that essay still select reviewers to highlight and quote to provide a more comprehensive and clearer picture to readers.

Again, I do not have an issue with the length. I have written articles with short "Critical reception" sections before so I understand that point. I found myself reading this part and asking questions, like what about the song did reviewers find conventional or in what ways did reviewers find Carey's vocals to be complimentary to the song's composition. I am not asking for this section to be hugely expanded on, but I was just uncertain of the current structure. I would be curious to see how other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This part (it references the act of crying due to a tearful circumstance) reads rather awkwardly to me. I think it is overly wordy and is overly explanatory.
Shortened
For this part (According to David T. Farr, they), I would identify Farr in the prose.
Identified Farr and Marcic
This part (Using a low register during verses and an upper register for the chorus, her vocal range) when read literally is saying Carey's vocal range is the one using the registers. This should be changed to be grammatically correct.
Fixed
For this part (the fourth and final single from Mariah Carey in the United States), it may be beneficial to add a note saying that "There's Got to Be a Way" was released as a single only in the United Kingdom. While the current wording emphasizes this is the last US single, I think it would be best to avoid any potential confusion about the album having a fifth single.
Added a note

I hope these comments are helpful. You have done a wonderful job with the article so my comments are fairly limited. I am still not sure about the "Critical reception" structure, and that will likely hold up my review. If you decide to leave it as it currently stands, I will wait to see how other reviewers respond to it. Best of luck with the FAC overall! Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have revised the critical reception structure, adding quotes for clarity. Heartfox (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! I think the quotes help a lot, and the section is still concise. I do have two more quick comments. For the Entertainment Weekly and Stereogum bits, I would attribute the author in the prose to be consistent with the other instances in this section. While on the topic of Entertainment Weekly and Stereogum, would it be possible to swap out the score/grade for something more substantive from the reviews? I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I do not find either score or grade particularly illuminating or notable enough to get mentioned in the prose over the actual contents of either review. Apologies for adding on something else, but this should be it, and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support at that stage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attributed the authors. The Entertainment Weekly ref is unfortunately pretty much useless beyond the score. It just says "So tragic, when true love dies! Only emptiness inside. But "Cry" also landed Carey her fourth consecutive No. 1, so dry those tears, Mimi. B+." As for Stereogum, it already is cited 10 times in the article and thrice in the critical reception section so I don't know if it is appropriate to rely on it much more than that. Heartfox (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I would honestly recommend removing that sentence as I do not think it adds that much value, but I will leave that up to your personal preference. It may be best to wait and see if other reviewers have any issue with it. If not, then it should be fine as it currently stands. It is a shame the Entertainment Weekly source is not so great in terms of actual content. Thank you for your patience with my review. I support your FAC for promotion based on the prose. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Unlink the common terms "digital synthesizers", "section", "airplay", "introduction", "verse", "pre-chorus", "post-chorus", "concludes", "outro", "album track", and "hit song" per WP:OVERLINK, also the use of "hit" here is subpar tone
Unlinked and reworded
To give readers context regarding marriage and creative control (not everybody knows the nature of their relationship), the lead should mention Tommy was running Mariah's label (Columbia Records) at the time
Added
As far as I know, "Singles" was never part of the chart name for Billboard Hot 100, so let's remove that and maybe use "songs" with lower case instead.
See Google Books; the title at the time was "Hot 100 Singles" (and trademarked as that). It's also listed as "Hot 100 Singles" in the table of contents on the cover.
Just say fourth single from the album: any details on which territories other songs were released is better for the Mariah Carey album article.
Reworded
If it's known when this particular song was recorded, then I'd add that.
In Narada Michael Walden's book about his relationship with Whitney Houston, he makes reference to tracking Carey's vocals "during one of the March 1990 sessions" in New York, but doesn't indicate that this was for "I Don't Wanna Cry". It might be better to include in the album article as I'm not certain it applies to this song specifically.

Thankfully I find no glaring issues! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift review! Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, and one last thing I forgot to mention: were you not able to find a specific release date within March 1991? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately US release dates are very hard to come by in the physical era. March 1991 is used as that's when it was reviewed in Billboard and designated as a "new release". The Recording Industry Association of America gives a release date of April 25, 1991, which is absurd as it was already top 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the April 27 issue. I have noticed many discrepancies and issues with RIAA release dates, so I only cite them if there is no other source. Heartfox (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and the only March date I came across (namely the 19th) was from fansites, so I'll support the page as it is now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ edit

Apologies for taking my time with this. I should have prose comments up sometime during the weekend.--N Ø 07:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carey is not referred to as a "singer-songwriter" on her biography or other featured articles about her. Shouldn't it be just "singer" here as well?
Reworded.
"It became Carey's fourth consecutive number one" → "number-one"
I believe hyphens are only used when in an adjective. In this case, "number one" is the noun. The sentence is written as "fourth consecutive number one", not "fourth consecutive number-one song". I believe both are correct, but in this case the former is used.
Can the sentence beginning "Ienner recommended" be rephrased to convey the idea better? Currently the part of this sentence with the genres seems tacked on and is a bit hard to understand.
Rephrased.
"While working on some uptempo tunes" → uptempo songs might be more formal
Reworded.
The sentence about Carey's marriage and divorce looks a little out of place to me in the Recording section, but I'll leave it up to you what to do with this part.
There isn't enough content for a legacy section, so I think it fits best here.
"It distributed cassettes and 7-inch vinyls to retail in March 1991" → what about "the label" instead of "it"?
Reworded.
Is it necessary to state how many units the certification signifies?
Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." The term "Gold" might not be familiar to someone who doesn't know a lot about the music industry, so the addition of what it represents acts as an explainer.
The man in the music video being attractive is currently stated in Wikipedia voice. If this can't be attributed to a critic it might be better to remove this characterization.
ABC News describes him as a " shirtless model", so I don't think stating he is attractive is unreasonable.

I'd be fine with describing him as a male model as done in the current revision if that verbiage is prevalent in sources.

My favorite songs on Carey's debut album are probably "Vanishing" and "Love Takes Time". It is great to see articles from the era still getting improved so many years later. Good luck with the nomination!--N Ø 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I would have to say that "Someday" 7" Jack Swing Mix is my favourite :) Heartfox (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--N Ø 14:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments edit

Mariah Carey: Original Keys for Singers, you have listed the publisher as the author and missed off the author. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format it when the publisher is the author D: I added a publisher parameter. Heartfox (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat [2] the author is Mariah Carey. (Which makes sense to me.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Heartfox (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 3 April 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.