Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mariah Carey singles discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [1].

Mariah Carey singles discography

[edit]

Mariah Carey singles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article meets all the necessary criteria in terms of writing, sourcing and everything else. Thanks in advance, to all the editors that take place in this nomination. PeterGriffin • Talk 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me
*Neutral, though there are several concerns which should be addressed.
  1. The prose in the lead requires copy editing. Nothing major stands out but it should be read through and edited once or twice.
  2. Seen as this article is called singles discography the Lv2 heading == Singles == is redudent and should be removed. All other Lv3 headings e.g. === As featured artist === should be upgraded to Lv2.
  3. The last paragraph of the intro reads a bit like a list, it needs rewording.
  4. Should make use of a more up to date image e.g. [2]
  5. Sales for individual singles should not be included because:
    • It adds unecessary bulk
    • They've only been included for the UK and since space/navigation will be an issue they should be removed as sales for all countries cant be added.
  6. To improve the navigation of the table (it doesn't fare well on older computers/smaller screens, reduce the size of the "Title" columns.
  7. If the chart is not included in the the table then neither should the certificate. E.g. there are Swedish certs but no charts.
  8. The use of A for listing notes is not appropriate next to the chart position. Place it next to the song name instead and see the example of Kelly Rowland discography for how notes should be properly implemented.
  9. As featured artist and as lead artist tables should be equally aligned.
  10. "Right to Dream" and "100%" need sources to prove they were released independently and not just on their respective albums.
  11. Notes should appear just before references just like in Kelly Rowland discography.
  12. Ref issues... e.g. 32 has no publisher..
  13. (and reissue) needs removing from the table.

Please note that if these are addressed I will be willing to reassess my opinion as this could be promoted to FL IMO with a bit og leg work. Also note that I support it being seperate from the albums. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its all fixed!:)--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a really good job. Well done. However I'm still not satisfied with several things. Firstly all of the tables should be equally aligned..., secondly according to Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel article and the discussions that took place it was agreed that "Angels Cry" and "Up Out My Face" will be classified as from MOAIA because that's where the original versions of the songs were from. They were remixed for their single releases and would have been featured of Angels Advocate if it had been released. "100%" needs a source to provide it was released seperately from the Team USA Soundtrack ... (hint: if you go to the article you can copy the iTunes source ;) Finally I stand by comments I made about certificates only being included when the accompanying chart is. Otherwise it gives the impression that the chart is deliberately omitted because chart positions dont meet expectations etc. Examples I've seen at other FL discographies support this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • There must be a better link for Millennium Award than just Millennium.
  • "After Carey's success in Asia with Merry Christmas, Billboard estimated Carey as the all time best-selling" - estimated her...
  • You head from overall success in Asia to a single released in 2008. I would expect the lead to deal with her biggest singles, chronologically.
  • "charts history" chart's history.
  • "the lead single off Carey's holiday album"
    • from her album, not off her album.
    • What's a "holiday album"?
  • " is one of the few songs in recent years to be considered a classic" is this your opinion?
  • "All I Want for Christmas Is You, - missing a quotation mark.
  • "Throughout her career, Mariah Carey has sold 17,200,000 physical singles..." you need a timeframe for this, because that's quite accurate.
  • "This list does not include "Vision of Love" or "Love Takes Time" as they were released before SoundScan began tracking data.[13]" why not? Even if the data is missing, these are still considered her singles, right?
  • "with over 5 million" - five.
  • "With her albums Daydream and Buttefly..." The songs were from her albums, right?
  • I think there's a multiplication symbol you should use, rather than x in the tables.
  • Notes need to be referenced.
  • I don't think Release, Press is appropriate- it's just a Press release!
  • Refs 17 and 18 are the same and have a = in the ISO date which is incorrect.
  • Be consistent with publisher and work names (e.g. Mariahcarey.com, Billboard.com).

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RamblingMan, I believe I have addressed all of your issues. I have tried to find sources for all the Notes, but there are some could not. Everything else should be corrected.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes still need references, odd lead now, you don't actually link Mariah Carey until the fourth para, it's all a little strange. E=MC2 needs a superscript on the 2, Press Release isn't "Release, Press", and if you have "Lichtman, Irv", you should have "Hung, Steffen" not "Steffen Hung". I've marked all my comments as resolved, but please, please check yourself that every one is resolved, it seems that you may have missed a couple. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those last small issues. Please see the issue I pointed out on your talk page, since they are resolved. Thank you!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "becomame Carey's "?
  2. I thought recent discogs didn't use "x" for "2x" etc in certifications, there's another "times" symbol.
  3. Notes aren't referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all of those issues, and added citations to pretty much all of the notes. Please check back. Thanks allot :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, they are referenced. I don't know to place the reference right next to the actual note, so they are by the song, where it says [Note 1] then there is a reference. There should be one by pretty much all of them.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 14:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use WP:REFNEST. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Just a suggestion, the Canadian references next to the position looks kinda messy, I know that the RPM archives go single by single by could you consider doing something similar to the Lady Gaga discography. For example reference 36 lists all of her charting singles in Germany without having to put a reference in every space of the table something like a sub-reference, that way the table looks cleaner. This is just a suggestion. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frcm1988, I just did as you suggested, and I think it looks awesome. Thanks for the tip, check it out and tell me what you think.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks much better now. I will see the rest of the article later, if there isn't any big problems I will support. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I fixed the notes as you asked Rambling Man, thanks for the help!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Peter, I have to oppose this discogaphy at present since there are quite a few outstanding issues I find regarding prose, MoS, citations etc. I will list some of them

  • The beginning line is so abrupt for a discography article. You need to cehck other FL discogs as to how they begin. Fixed
  • Again it shows your kind of obsession with "Vision of Love". There were other #1 singles from Mariah Carey, there's not even a passing reference to them. Fixed
  • "Without You" is listed as toppping the charts in Austria and Sweden, but not supported by the charts. Fixed
  • Again there is a huge skip of timeline, there's no mention at all of the singles from Emotions and MTV Unplugged. Fixed
  • the best-selling single of 1994 -> the best-selling Japanese single of 1994 Fixed
  • US Hot 100 --> the charts name is Billboard Hot 100 Fixed
  • There is absolutely no mention of Butterfly, #1's, Rainbow, Glitter. I don't understand the exclusion of the last two. Just because they were commercial disappointments doesnot mean that they should not be included. Hence there is no neutral point of view in the article. Fixed- FYI, Rainbow was not a commercial disappointment
  • At the end of the decade -> which decade? Fixed
  • spending the most weeks at number one of the decade (fourteen weeks).[ --> ellipse Fixed
  • Reference 13 to the Yahoo blog was deemed unreliable because of its author. Fixed
  • In 2009, Carey's cover of Foreigner's classic "I Want to Know What Love Is," became the longest-running song number-one song in Brazilian singles chart history, spending 27 consecutive weeks atop the chart --> trivial seeing the chart itlsef is not mentioned. REmember, this is a discogaphy, not a songography. Fixed
  • The lead seems littered with trivial soundscan and BDS information from Billboard and thus catering only to the US market. Another instance of WP:BIAS and WP:POV violation. It is a similar situation, where there's no flow, cohesion and looks like a WP:DIRECTORY, as I pointed out in the talk page of Mariah Carey biography article. Fixed
  • The infobox: "Singles", "Promotional singles" returns a dead link, same for "Other appearance" Help
  • Moving on to the table. Carey's primary market is the US, and US certifications should be before any other market. Fixed
  • For the Canadian charts, what you did for the RPM ones, you can similarly merge the Billboard Canadian hot 100 reference to make it a single one, so that you don't need two separate reference tags. The Canadian Hot 100 is 1 reference.
  • Why is there a certification called Million in AIWFCIY? That's what its called in Japan
  • "One Sweet Day" - Boyz II Men had featured credit, please reflect it in that way. Fixed
  • Similar to the other featured credits, par "When You Believe". Added and fixed
  • For AUS and NZ charts in Featured Artist, you can do a similar thing like the RPM ones. There is no need, its the same thing as with "The Official Charts Company in the UK"
  • Coming to the citations: I don't understand why are online sources italicized and why are printed media not in italics?Fixed
  • About.com --> online source Fixed
  • Reference 3 needs volume, issue, issn, author etc. Fixed
  • FL quality article shouldnt use ChartStats Fixed
  • Ref 7, pubished media Fixed
  • sky.org is an unreliable source Fixed
  • After that so many of the references lack author name and date I have provided author and date where available
  • I suggest a thorough re-checking of every reference in the article. I did that
  • Use en-dash in the references please and in the artile body, wherever applicable. Fixed
  • Using the template {{Mariah Carey}} is of no significance here. Fixed
  • You are already once linking the albums discography in the top, then why at the bottom in the See also section? Fixed

All these issues makes me believe that the nomination was underprepared and rushed out. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed almost all the things you mentioned, as well as almost re-writing the lead. Please explain a few of your issues, as I do not understand the problem, thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got some advice from a freind,so now all the issues are fixed Legolas. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 13:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although prose has increased a little, most of it still needs a copy-edit. Also, most of the MoS issues which I pointed out regarding en-dashes and online/printed publications are still there. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose still stands as there are the MoS issues still pending, as well as some other outstanding issues now intriduced.
  1. as well as her third number one single in Canada --> you haven't mention any peak position in Canada, why this one?
  2. Jackson 5's classic --> Jackson 5 classic
  3. became her second chart topper in New Zealand --> see b4
  4. Music Box yielded other successful singles, --> You are saying that Music Box yielded other successful singles, but you mentioned only one, "Hero"
  5. produced the Christmas classic --> it is noted as Christmas classic by whom?
  6. The song performed well outside the US, peaking at number two in Australia and the UK. The song is Carey's best-seller in the United Kingdom, with sales of over 670,000 units --> Consecutive singles beginning with the same intro
  7. I find similar instances as my previous comment, throughout the article
  8. Another really outstanding issue, which I previously ignored, was the size of the lead. It is the largest I have ever seen for an article, albeit being a discography. I would suggest pruning down all the miscellaneous statistics. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I fixed those issues and removed allot of repeatedor miscellaneous mentions.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • neutral, i'm not convinced that there's enough precision for FLC status.
  • first of all there is inconsistancies for example every time a song is mentioned it should be given in Speech marks. Vision of Love → "Vision of Love". Fixed
  • there is still some issues with neutrality.
  • e.g. The album's lead single "Loverboy", failed to top the charts in any major market, peaking only at number two in the US and the top ten in Australia and Canada. This sentance appears to suggest that reaching number two is bad thing. Fixed
  • The following singles from Rainbow were not as successful outside the US, where the album's follow-up single, "Thank God I Found You", peaked outside the top twenty in most European countries, with the exception of the UK, where it reached the top ten. reorder the sentance from best to worst chart achievements. Fixed
  • It should be noted that the article uses two different types of English. As an American subject the article should use purely American English. E.g. US → U.S. Fixed
  • The album's second single, "We Belong Together", became her highest charting single in years. Specify how many years. Fixed
  • topping the charts in the US and Australia, and reaching the top five in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and top two in the UK. - re-order sentance from best chart achievements to worst. Fixed
  • The album's second single, "Bye Bye", performed weakly on the charts, peaking in the top twenty in the US, and barely cracking the top forty in Canada, Germany and the UK what's barely cracking? surely it didnt reach the same number of positions outside the top 40 in Canada, Germany and the UK? Fixed
  • Did any of her singles have particular success outside of the US that should be noted? For every single that I listed I wrote info on other territories, so I don't understand the issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I mean most of her singles were hits in the US, and many were hits elsewhere, so there isnt a specific single which only did well in Europe. I did express how IWTKWLI did better in Europe than US, thats all I can think of :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How successful was "Hero"? was it equally as successful as "Without You"? Less/more? Also why is there no mention of her re-release of this? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vay Unique, I can't write her whole career here. Look at Madonna singles discography, just as an example. The intro is already long IMO, but acceptable. If you want all that info go to her biography page. Honestly, I wrote the major aspects of almost all her singles. And Hero was not re-released. It was re-recorded for her "The Ballads" album, though NOT commercially re-released, so I don't think there is any reason to mention this. I will explain more on Hero's worldwide success as you ask.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:15, 21 September 2010 (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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mariah_Carey_singles_discography/archive1&oldid=1140218961"