Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [1].

---

Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser-known Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey collaboration from 1998, which is actually a cover of an even lesser-known 1986 single by Rainy Davis. Sony allegedly withdrew the US commercial single at the last minute so as to not cannibalize sales of "When You Believe", Carey's collaboration with Whitney Houston. Based on the song's critical reception, people believed this was the most sexualized Carey had ever come across. I'm not really a fan of the song but it was interesting to research and write about. The timeline of how the song came to be is a bit iffy due to various sources stretching decades, but I believe it is worded accurately. I hope to address any comments and suggestions for the article :) Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

Addressed comments

I am uncertain about the article's current structure. Currently, it does not have a lead, and instead, it starts off with the Rainy Davis version and goes into the Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey versions. I would instead have a clearly defined lead and then go into each version in the article itself. I just do not think the current structure is beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! I understand your point about the structure and perhaps I overlooked it. At the same time, the Rainy Davis original does not have enough notability for its own article if the Dupri/Carey version never happened, and so it is difficult to write a lead combining the two when parts of the lead describing the Rainy Davis version would duplicate everything in its own section. That being said, I will experiment with the structure and get back to you soon. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the response. I think starting the article with a section devoted to the Davis version and then using that to segue way into the cover would be the best idea, but I agree that it is best to experiment around and see what happens. But this article should have some sort of lead that provides a comprehensive overview of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Please let me know what you think about what I've tried with the lead. Heartfox (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this. I think you have made great progress and I will post more comments soon. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC) The lead should include information on who produced the original version of this song. Added. I wonder if this information, As a teenage girl, American singer Mariah Carey listened to the song., could be conveyed in a more engaging manner. Maybe something along the lines of American Mariah Carey was inspired to cover the song after listening to it as a teenage girl? This part does not seem as seamlessly incorporated into the prose as it could be. Reworded. I have a clarification question about this part, The song received critical reviews. I have not read the article thoroughly yet so apologies for that, but were this reviews positive, negative? I couldn't find anything that summarizes the reviews so referring to them as positive/negative as a whole would be OR. Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Good point. That was my view of this part, but I wanted to make sure with you. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) The lead seems short. Is there any further information to be added to it? I'm not really sure what more to add, but I have revised it. Thank you for addressing this point. I am not sure of the lead, but I think progress is being made and I find it to be one of the more challenging sections to handle so hopefully a more experienced editor in that area will contribute to the review. I will take a closer look at it on Friday. Aoba47 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I have attempted to put together a draft of the lead in one of my sandboxes, but feel free to disregard as again, this is not my strong suit. I have experimented with adding images of Davis and Carey to the top, but I am uncertain if it works. I just wanted to propose this to you. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Apologies for bringing up another structure-related issue, but there appears to be like a mini-lead under the "Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey version" section. There should not be this kind of lead in the article itself and this may be a reason why the actual lead is so short. This section should jump right into the information about the cover. Moved out of section. I believe the chart information for the Davis original has to be represented in the prose along with the tables. I replicated most of it. I would attribute the following sentence to Billboard to make it clear that this is not something presented in Wikipedia's voice: It was a minor success on R&B-based record charts in the United States. I think it is interesting to note that this article referred to the song as a "huge club/dance hit". It may be worth pointing out this discrepancy (in a neutral manner of course). Done. The main Rainy Davis article claims that this song was made for Janet Jackson. This is uncited so I cannot confirm if this is true, but I wanted your opinion on it. I could not find this supported in a reliable source, but you might have better luck. I was shocked at how little there is about Rainy Davis herself when I was doing research. Most of that article cannot be verified in online sources. It's kinda weird. Like Pete Warner is pictured at File:Pete Warner Awards.jpg with a bunch of Mariah Carey plaques... for being the writer of a cover version that didn't even chart on the Hot 100? It's so weird. If you're taking credit for Carey's album certifications because of one song (from an album with 13 number-one songs lmao) then that kinda makes me wonder about other claims. I mean anyone can write a song "for" someone. Thank you for the explanation. It is a shame that information about Davis seems so limited. I could even see that while doing my brief search for a source on the Jackson claim. I agree with you that the other claims do not seem well-supported and I also have doubts about their veracity. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Do we have the credits and personnel for the Davis original (i.e. from the liner notes of the Sweetheart album)? I'm open to citing the album liner notes but unlike the physical single it does not list Dorothy Kessler as producer, so I'm unsure which to defer to. That is interesting. I will look into this matter more in the near future. Do you think it would be beneficial to cite the liner notes for the single instead of the album? Discogs does have a decent entry on the single release here with an image that shows the credits on the vinyl. I just wanted to pitch that as a potential source. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I really don't feel comfortable citing the album liner notes. There's no distinction per song, and I doubt every song had 8 engineers and 5 recording studios. I don't want to introduce potentially incorrect information. While I understand that, you can still cite the notes for the single release. There should be a separate subsection for the personnel for the Davis version as done for the Carey/Dupri cover. Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) The vinyl single only lists the writers, arrangers (writers), producers, mixer, and executive producers. Executive producers are not included per WP:NOEXEC, so there is only four people listed. I do not see the purpose of a separate section for a list of four people which are already written in prose (and adjacent infobox). Heartfox (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I am uncertain of the value of File:Sweetheart music video.png since Dupri is barely visible and that seems to be the entire reason for including the screenshot in the article. I replaced it with a free equivalent, but the infobox is now too long to include it in the relevant section :/ Thank you for addressing this matter. I agree that it is a shame. It is tough to use images with this kind of article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) For the Carey cover, I would move the commercial performance section after the critical reception section as it is standard to have this section order for song article (at least from my experience). Moved. I am not sure about this wording, and Dupri's raps. I think it should be either "verses" or "rapping style", but "raps" does not sound correct to me. Reworded. Apologies for being super nitpick-y at this stage, but I am not sure the source backs this sentence: In The Indianapolis Star, Scott L. Miley said Carey's performance was unflattering. The source refers to the song as Carey's "unflattering bid to be Dupri's 'Sweetheart'". I find "performance" can be vague and I initially read it as the review calling her vocals unflattering. Reworded. I have a few questions about the structure and lead and I have included some comments on the article after doing a brief read-through and I will go more in-depth in the future. As you've already said, this is an odd because the song is only notable because of the cover. Hopefully, this FAC will help editors who work on similar articles in the future. I have made the following edits as I will make minor copy-edits to avoid adding too much here. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope this review is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks again for your helpful comments! I had the same thoughts about not really knowing about a song that has multiple versions being FA. I too hope if this nomination succeeds that the article structure will be helpful to others. Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your patience. I hope I do not come across as harsh as I appreciate your work. I have two comments. The credits for the Carey cover should be present in the prose. I would add it to the "Background" section and rename it "Background and recording". The infobox should also have Dupri's next single. I believe it is "Going Home with Me", but I am uncertain so I did not want to add it myself. Also would either of these sources (Cleveland.com and Billboard) be helpful? I will do a read-through of the article on Friday if that is okay with you. Apologies for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the source suggestions. I have incorporated the Billboard source. The Cleveland.com source describes the Rainy Davis version as "pretty awesome", which I don't think is helpful to readers as the writer does not explain why they feel that way. Regarding "Going Home With Me", it does not have an article so I am unsure of the appropriateness of a wikilink. Don't worry about your comments—they are very helpful. This is actually my first-ever song GAN/FAC so I am a little rusty lol. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the response. I believe you have misinterpreted my comment on "Going Home With Me". I was not asking for a wikilink. The infobox presents the singles chronology for Dupri and Carey, but it does not show Dupri's single after this one (which would be "Going Home With Me" to my understanding). I have not made this edit as I am uncertain if Dupri's next single was that one or "The Party Continues". The Wikipedia articles seem to contradict each other on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I have added the single. Heartfox (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC) The infobox for the Davis version should have a single chronology as well since she released singles after this one. Added, based on Billboard at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1286469021. A video on Davis's YouTube account refers to the song as "Sweetheart (A Storybook Romance)". Was this a thing either upon the single's release or retroactively? I haven't seen it referred to that. Perhaps for publishing rights reasons she had to add a subtitle. I have not seen a reference to it either, but I wanted to check with you. It could also be her way of distinguishing it from the cover. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) For this part, stated that the song's release was part of a strategy to expand beyond their traditional dance club-aligned releases, would it be possible to avoid the release/releases repetition? I have a similar question for the following sentence that repeats runtime twice. Reworded. In the 1986 US weekly chart performance chart, Cash Box is linked twice, but Billboard is only linked on its first instance. Linked. I have a few questions about this part, whom she had collaborated with on "Always Be My Baby". Why is this song spotlighted? From my understanding, Carey first worked with Dupri on a remix of "Never Forget You". Is only "Always Be My Baby" mentioned as it is likely the most well-known of their collaborations. Also, I think it would be beneficial to mention how Carey and Dupri are frequent collaborators to the point that Vulture said the following: "So much of Mariah’s success is owed to producer Jermaine Dupri." "Always Be My Baby" was their most well-known collaboration at that point, being released only two years prior in 1996. No secondary sources mention "Never Forget You" in "Sweetheart"-related articles, but they did mention ABMB. I have changed the wording from "whom she had collaborated with on "Always Be My Baby"" to "whom she had collaborated with on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"" to reflect that ABMB was not their only collaboration. Thank you for the correction. It is probably unnecessary to go too deeply into the two's collaborations in this particular article and it may be more beneficial to keep that to the main Carey and Dupri articles. I can see both sides of this argument myself so I will leave this matter up to future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I have already mentioned this on the nominator's talk page, but the article does not include information on the song's appearances on other compilation albums by Carey, specifically Greatest Hits, The Remixes, and The Essential Mariah Carey. I think this borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I believe it is generally assumed that many musicians have compilation albums in which their singles may be included on. Because there aren't really any secondary sources that cover the inclusion of "Sweetheart" on those albums I don't think it is appropriate to include. I disagree. The article should be comprehensive. I do not see a reason why a single sentence or two on the song's appearances on three compilation albums is an issue. Not every single makes it on a compilation. Since this one was largely overlooked in comparison to others, it could give off the impression that this song just was not included on any of her other compilations. Also, I have found at least one secondary source about these inclusions. This Slant Magazine review of Greatest Hits talks about the "inclusion of tracks with less-than-stellar chart performances" on the album, and cites "Sweetheart" as an example. But, again, I disagree with your rationale and for me, it comes down to making the article comprehensive. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC) I have added a sentence. Heartfox (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC) I have a few comments about how the "Critical reception" subsection is structured. The part on The Indianapolis Star review seems out-of-place. Wouldn't the last two sentences in the second paragraph fit better in the first paragraph? These sentences seem to be about Dupri's rapping style and less about the song's sensuality. Moved. Shouldn't the publications in the 1998 year-end chart performance chart be linked again since they repeatedly linked in the weekly chart? Linked. The Citation 33 should not have the general staff as the author. Removed. Citation 4 includes the department for the newspaper, but I do not see this being done for the other Newspapers.com citations. I would do it for the others to be consistent and this is useful information to have in the citations. In the article's reference style, the department parameter is only included when it relates to the page number. For example, when page 4 in "TV" department is different than page 4 in a different section. But most publications have page numbers that continue across departments, so the department parameter is not necessary to provide. (I removed the one exception in ref 4). I find the department to be helpful, but consistency is the most important matter so it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) This book has a bit that discusses how the Guggenheim Museum is used in the video. It is published by a reliable publisher and written by a notable author (Sekou Cooke). Would this source be helpful for this article? This source also an interesting analysis of the location. Thank you for the helpful source. I have written a sentence citing it in the music video paragraph. Thank you for addressing this point, but I would attribute Cyrus Peñarroyo in the prose to make sure readers understand that this was an interpretation made by someone and not a statement made by Williams. Also any feedback for the second source proposed in the above comment? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC) This book discusses how the music has been used in what they described as "popular media projects", including the "Sweetheart" video, and I think that would be beneficial to include in the article to inform readers that this location has recurred in media. Here is another book that describes a similar thing, even calling the museum a "celebrity". This is already listed in the second paragraph of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao#Economic and media impact. Would it be helpful to include this context on the Museum's role in media in this article though? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC) I have now incorporated both books. Heartfox (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC) This should conclude my review, but once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to just make sure. I hope these comments are helpful and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the follow-up comments! I have incorporated most of them to the article. Heartfox (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the responses. I have left a few responses above and once they all get sorted out, then I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments and for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I'd recommend pinging ChrisTheDude to inform him about the work you've put into this article. I agree with you about the song. I'm no crazy about it, but I also find the history surrounding it to be fascinating and the video is simply great. I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer the original. It's very much of it's time, but there's something about it that makes me smile. Best of luck with your FAC! It would be nice to see a Mariah Carey song have a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with and support of the article. Heartfox (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

• Agreed, as it stands the article structure is not right - it has literally no lead, instead the section about the original version is placed where a lead should be. You need to write a lead which summarises the whole article (which will in fact almost entirely be about the cover, with probably just one or two sentences about the original), then make the brief section about the original the first section of the body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have written a paragraph that hopefully summarizes the article. Please let me know what you think. Heartfox (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, just wondering if you had time to review what changes have been made in regard to the article structure. Heartfox (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Further comments from me

• ""Sweetheart" is a song recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." - I would say ""Sweetheart" is a song originally recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." given that most of the article is (rightly) about a cover version
• "American singer Mariah Carey co-produced a cover version with American rapper" => "American singer Mariah Carey recorded a cover version with American rapper"
• "Carey felt recording a song she liked" => "Carey felt that recording a song she liked"
• "whom she had collaborated with on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"." => "with whom she had collaborated on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"."
• "David Drake said the song underperformed" => "David Drake said that the song underperformed"
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "produced it along with Dorothy Kessler"
• "Hip hop pop" - hip hop is not a proper noun so it does not need to be capitalized (see both infoboxes).
• "it experienced minor success on on the former" - double on.
• "The song peaked at numbers twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-seven, respectively, on such charts published by Cash Box, Billboard, and Radio & Records magazines" - lose the such.
• "She decided to include four new songs" - I would get rid of "decided to" if she did in fact include four new songs.
• "released in July that year" -> "released that July"
• as Carey sings that "A full moon... - either remove that and add a comma after sings or decapitalize that.
• The third single from Life in 1472,[33] So So Def and Columbia Records jointly released "Sweetheart" - the way this sentence is phrased, it means So So Def and Columbia Records were the third single from Life in 1472.
• Spin reported that DreamWorks and Arista Records were concerned that the song's release, let alone a retail availability, might jeopardize the success of their impending release, Carey's duet with Whitney Houston, "When You Believe", as Carey would be competing with herself on record charts.[38] Feels overlong and crowded with commas.
• "Joan Anderman said Dupri added street cred to the album" - street cred is colloquial. If the author used it that way, use it in quotes.
• There's a missing space between "critics." and "The Baltimore Sun's"
• "Los Angeles Times critic Natalie Nichols found her vocals both sexier and more realistic" - remove "both" as it adds little to the meaning.
• "In the United States, Billboard thought it would be the most-played song on both pop and R&B radio stations" - lose "both" as per above. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for your helpful comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

I am unsure that we can justify two non-free images here; and even if yes you'd need a stronger rationale than the one currently used. Everything else seems fine. Only the Bilbao image has ALT text, which seems OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. All of the images have alt text. I have edited the Bilbao Museum alt text to hopefully make it more specific. An image of a music release's physical artwork is not normally seen as unjustified in infoboxes in an article about the song, and the rationale is from a template. Can you clarify what action you would like me to take? Heartfox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it's two images. One is usually considered OK; with two I wonder if both are needed & significantly contribute to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the first image. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Elias

Will look at the article's prose :) I have made some copyedits that I did because I felt they were uncontentious enough that we'd be wasting time if I made such minor/simple comments here. Obviously feel free to revert some changes you disagree with.

Oh, and if you have the time, a review in my current song FAC would be appreciated :D ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Not sure if this hyphenated neologism "Hype Williams-directed" reads as professional.

  Reworded.

• "snyths" I fixed this typo, which was in the lead section. I looked out for any other typos, but I think that was it - feel free to reread the article because I likely might have missed one

  Thanks for catching that.

• Instead of saying "Davis's 1987 studio album of the same name" you can just say "Davis's 1987 studio album Sweetheart" as it is shorter, plus you don't use this kind of verbiage in the prose itself.

  Reworded.

• Linking "record chart" feels like OL here

• Removed.

Original

• "expand beyond their traditional dance club-aligned songs by finding and issuing ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "expand beyond promoting songs made for dance clubs by finding and issuing ones suitable for radio airplay"? A couple reasons for this change:
  • "expand beyond their traditional" I don't think we need "traditional" here. "Expand beyond X" already implies that X is a tradition or well-established habit
  • "dance club-aligned" similar concerns with "Hype Williams-directed"
  • "ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "ones suitable for radio airplay" Usually when I see someone say is a radio song or a radio hit, they say "suitable for radio" or "made for radio" or something along those lines

  Reworded.

• "According to a 2020 Billboard article" do we need to explicitly attribute Billboard for saying the song had minor success on R&B single charts? It doesn't exactly feel like an opinion, which is usually what we attach attributions to.

  I think it just makes clear that it is a retrospective view, but if the article was published in 1987, it could have been classified differently.

• The third paragraph discussing the critical reception has a slight "X said this, Y said that" formula to it, which often makes paragraphs discussing reception dull. However I am giving this one a pass since the OG version didn't really attract a large amount of reviews that could have made summarizing consensus easier.

  Thank you for understanding.

Cover version (background)

• "included four new songs" perhaps specify she included it in #1's tracklist. It sounds somewhat awkward not explicitly stating where she included the songs

  I believe this is stated at the end of the paragraph "it appeared as the first song on #1's.."

Cover version (music and lyrics)

• Is there any reason why the lyrics are discussed in the section about Carey's cover, instead of in the one about the original version which feels more natural? Since we're talking about a cover, I assume the lyrics would not at all change.

  Unfortunately there were no sources about the original song that discussed its lyrics. There are some lyrical differences too.

  Ah. Well, then the lead should be changed to reflect that - it discusses the lyrics in the context of the original song when the prose does otherwise.

• The sentence about the remixes feels more suited in the release subsection

  Moved.

Cover version (release)

• "might cannibalize sales" this wording is not at all encyclopedic and reads more like what I would see in a magazine or newspaper. Would suggest changing to "negatively affect sales"

  It is an actual concept though. There is an article at Cannibalization (marketing).

  Oh ... thanks for pointing that out. My bad 😅 In that case, we can add a wikilink to that article so that other folks don't get surprised like I did.

• "in advance of" nitpick, but I'd prefer "in anticipation of"

  Reworded.

• can we clarify if the UK vinyl contains only "Sweetheart", or does it contain other songs with it?

  Added.

• Perhaps explain that the digital EP contains a bunch of Old Carey covers including "Sweetheart" to explain why this sentence is relevant in the article

  It is an extended play of various remixes of the song. The new introductory sentence of this paragraph hopefully acts to clarify.

Cover version (critical reception/commercial performance)

• "Carey's vocal performance allowed her to come across as sultrier" does not seem supported by the source which reads "On the engaging dance track, 'Sweetheart,' he coaxes more of a sultry R&B vocal from Mariah Carey and reins in her histrionic tendencies." If it read "more sultry R&B vocals" I might give it a pass, buuut... the vocals are sultrier than what, exactly?

  Reworded.

• Reading the Vibe source that says "Mariah drops her vocal bucket deeper into her well of soul", I don't get the impression that they are calling her voice soulful, but maybe that is just because a lot of magazine commentary likes to sacrifice coherency for flowery purple prose. Either way, saying that her vocals were soulful does not add a lot of substance to the commentary, IMO.
  • I often find that annoying with magazines as well. Literally multiple paragraphs and it's just a bunch of flowery language that cannot even be incorporated into the article.
• Apologies for this comment... I am concerned with this section as a whole, finding that both paragraphs lack cohesion. It reads more like a formulaic list of various comments from a tray of publications rather than an engaging, semi-narrative summary about how critics analyzed the work. WP:RECEPTION provides wonderful guidance for how to write about critical response more effectively.
  • I took the liberty of overhauling the section in a personal sandbox, but I want to get your thoughts on how it reads first before it can be transferred into the actual article. Since you likely have access to the sources unlike me, it is up to you to determine whether my edits preserved the intended meaning of your writing and the sources you cited.

  I have incorporated many changes.

• "commercial song" can we clarify what this means for any unfamiliar readers?

  Reworded.

Cover version (music video)

• Would suggest adding a {{clear}} template after the last paragraph of the "Music video" subsection. There is a weird space on my screen between "Credits adapted..." and the bullet list

  Added.

• "sweetheart" (lowercase) in quotes here feels off - can we reword it to "lover" to avoid the quotation marks?

  Reworded.

@Your Power: thank you for such an extensive review. I have made many changes. Heartfox (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: thank you for responding fairly quickly! I was a bit nervous cause I found myself leaving more comments than I expected tbh. I have left replies to two pending concerns above. Once they're addressed I'll reread through everything again and see if I will be supporting Best, ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have addressed your replies above. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I have made my final copyedits to this article - as always feel free to revert some changes you don't agree with. Now with that settled, I feel confident to support promotion on the basis of prose quality. In terms of comprehensiveness, while I do wish we got more commentary on the original version's composition (especially the lyrics), it technically stil is a major aspect of the topic that is successfully mentioned in the article. Furthermore, I understand that some subjects are simply lacking in the relevant sources or literature to achieve the traditional sense of "comprehensive", and that Mariah's version received more media coverage. As long as I've left an article with no questions asked - this one is no different - then the criteria is satisfied enough for me. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• You have three uses of cite AV media notes: you give Mariah Carey as the artist in 46 but don't name the artist in the other two. Either way is fine, but it should be consistent. FYI 46 also has a hidden category error, Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes). This doesn't have to be fixed for FAC but if you're editing those citations anyway you may want to be aware of it.

That's the only formatting issue I can see. Will look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Made consistent.

• What makes ratedrnb.com a reliable source? It seems to have been launched as a one-person site and it's not clear it's much more than that now.

Switched to Newsday.

• The archive links for 62, 63, 67, 76 and 83 are not working for me; they may just be very slow. Can you check they're working for you?

They do load but are slow for me as well.

That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! I believe I have addressed everything. Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.