Jump to content

Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have reviewed and album and I liked this one so here goes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Background and recording
Title and cover art
  • Comments by Calvin999
  1. I don't think there is any need for the first two paragraphs of the Background section Nathan. E=MC2 was released in 2008, and contains one song about Mariah's marriage to Tommy, this should all be put into the Side Effects article, as that is what it is for. I think it's getting a bit repetitive and unnecessary to keep talking about Mariah's past going back to the early 1990s in practically every article related to Glitter, Charmbracelet, TEOM and E=MC2, it's just regurgitated info. You should start the paragraph from when Mariah started conceptualising for the album during the TAOM Tour, with maybe only 2/3 lines about Side Effects, because the first two paragraphs are just too much, and isn't needed considering her breakdown etc. happened 7 years previous. And I really don't see the relevance of this: "Carey described her album Butterfly (1997) as her magnum opus, and her greatest and most personal work, due to its personal and emotional background.[10]". Less is more sometimes Nathan.
  2. I think the Music and lyrics is also far too expansive. You know I like reading Mariah articles of yours, but I actually couldn't be bothered to read all of that section and got bored, once again, there is far too much there, it's ridiculously long and could be easily reduced by at least half. Talk a bit about the singles, maybe 3/4 lines for each, maximum, as their should be more detail for the Touch My Body, Bye Bye, IBLYLT and I Stay In Love articles, and talk the songs without articles in a bit more detail, about 5/6 lines.
  3. And I am shocked by the Singles section. I'll tell you why. You want me to reduce Loud's singles section to practically nothing, even though there are 7 singles and one 'Other songs' to talk about, yet this section is even bigger than Loud's, and E=MC2 only had 4 singles, 3 of which didn't even chart well. The length of the Touch My Body paragraph is longer than the California King Bed, Man Down and Cheers (Drink to That) paragraph. I think you should take your own advice on this one.

I'm really surprised at your reactions and comments here and on my GAN for Loud. What you are asking me to do on Loud is the complete opposite of what you have done here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off Calvin, do not come here combative and accusing of anything. As it happens to be, your comments on Loud do not belong here. If you wanted to approach me you could have on my talk page. Now, the background section will be reduced; know that you had nothing to do with that discussion. I pasted a lot of info in haste, and did not review the article prior to nominating, so I did include some superfluous information. Regarding the "Music and lyrics" section; I have never told you to reduce that section on Loud. That is the most important section on music articles (something you should have on "Wait Your Turn"). If I even think about reducing that, it would be minimal, and something discussed in between myself and Tony. Lastly, the singles section is shorter than on Loud, so I don't know what the hell you are coming up here with? I didn't tell you to give me a line per song. And seven singles? You want to tell me how many of those are notable.... As a notice, the singles section contains 742 words, whereas Loud has almost 1000 (after being reduced 3 times). So where you get the balls to make these comments I don't know. My issue might be an excess of information, but that is better than your, a serious lack of it. Take "Oh Santa!" for example.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being combative or accusing anyone of anyone, it's just my opinion from reading the article. I just used Loud as an example, because I didn't understand why you have said the things you said in the Loud GAN, but have done the complete opposite here, it just surprised me. I never said you told me to reduce info on the Loud Music and lyrics section, I don't know where you got that from? And with regard to Wait Your Turn, as you know, you can only include sourced information. The Loud singles section is bound to be longer, it doesn't matter if they are notable or not, as there are 8 songs to talk about. Cheers only has 2 lines. Nathan, please don't get all annoyed that I made a comment here, I was just writing it as I see it. I just think that too many sections in this article are excessively long, having too much of something is just as bad as not having enough, you've got to find the right balance; as you told me the other day, the single's articles are there for the in depth detail. Don't take what I have written the wrong way (though I feel you have), you know I value your opinion's and are a good friend on here. And I waited until this article had a reviewer so that I could post comments here, I thought that would be the correct thing to do. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round Two

[edit]

Tony, I am having trouble navigating through this page, let us please start the discussion here. I have removed 6kb of superfluous information from the background section. That solves your first issue. Regarding the lead, I don't give the name (its linked), ad yes, telling the reader that 1 line is important. Listen here. I have addressed your main concern, don't think I intend to wave every issue you post. FYI, I also changed the quote box to your liking, so I do compromise. I hope we can get past this 1 line of lead, and move on Tony, I have already moved a lot in your direction. And don't get combative please, I want to keep this review very calm and productive. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like :) Sure, take your time!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musics and lyrics
  • The first four or five lines seems to belong in the next section. Then the rest of the paragraph contains two new subjects (songs) that should be separate paragraphs.
  • The second paragraph should be split in two with the two main songs getting their own paragraphs.
  • "I Wish You Well" and "Bye Bye" both have sufficient content for separate paragraphs.
  • Explain to me why this is not integrated with the singles section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the composition section talks about the song's musical bed, instrumentation, production, writing, lyrics etc. The singles section discusses their commercial aspects, as well as the critical. So its critical commentary Vs. composition. See?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a musician, but what if there was one section for singles with subsections for musicality and commercial response/success? Then move the album critical response subsequent to the Style & structure section if not merged with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know Tony. I've written almost 20 album GAs, and I've never had an issue with this style or format. Is their are specific quotes that you feel aren't composition, and belong with critical, then by all means. But I think this is how it should be. Look at The Emancipation of Mimi, its one of my best, and currently doing well at FAC :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, I don't see the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1 going that well. I give it a 30-40% chance of passing. In terms of album GAs, you certainly know how to research the hell out of albums. I marvel at your work. I have had a few WP:SONGS GAs (I think I have 4 or 5), but my work pales to yours. In fact, feel free to add some content to Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), which is at WP:PR, if you know how to find anything for songs of that era. In terms of this GA, I am not saying that I disagree with what is compositional and critical. What I am saying, is that I think there should be a section that discusses the album as a whole and then another that discusses singles individually. Within each you could have two sections. I think there are many readers like me who are a bit less musically trained, but who like music. I think that organization might help them better. However, maybe you might point me to some sort of WP:ALBUMS policy guide.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also feel strongly about lengthy bits of content grouped into paragraphs. I don't see why two songs should share a paragraph when each has sufficient content to make a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the FAC has (whether or not comments are striked they are resolved, so I'm just waiting for editors to come and reply) been doing decently well; I am happy with it. Not saying it will for sure pass, but I'd give it 60% chance :) Now, I see what you're saying, but I don't see where these issues are found. The Composition section is all about the songs, I mean, it goes song by song listing its musical info. So maybe you can give me an example of lines that are from the album? As for the paragraphing, Tony, I say this honestly, feel free to paragraph it any way you see fit. That really doesn't bother me. I'm just confused as how you want it. Really, I don't mind :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • As for paragraphing, in the "Songs and lyrics" section make paragraphs for each song that has enough content to stand as a distinct paragraph. It is just proper grammatical structure to separate subjects by paragraph.
              • My suggestion, which may be wrong for some technical reason that I don't understand as a non-musician, is that the entire "Songs and lyrics" section, which provides details about songs be moved into the "Singles" section as a subsection with the current content in that section being a second subsection to this section. Explain to me problems with that organization or why the current is better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read my comments above. I think we have a disagreement on some formatting issues and I was waiting for a response on some things. I had wanted some paragraphs broken up and the quote box moved before moving forward with the review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it failed for a slightly different reason; you refused to provide or post a proper review, instead opting to leave it in limbo for 5 weeks because of "paragraphing"...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:E%3DMC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)/GA1&oldid=1140254468"