Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forever (Mariah Carey song)/archive1

Forever (Mariah Carey song)

Featured article candidates/Forever (Mariah Carey song)/archive1

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From September 1995 to May 1996, Mariah Carey spent six months at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart with three singles from Daydream. Columbia Records released "Forever" as the fourth US single and fifth overall. No other Carey song would surpass "Forever"'s peak of number two on the adult contemporary chart in the US until "Oh Santa!" some 14 years later, perhaps showing how making this type of music did not last "forever" for her :P Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

""Forever" was related to Carey's past work." - I think maybe ""Forever" was compared to Carey's past work." would work better
In the reception section, there's a bit of a mixing of tenses. You have "Pitchfork writer Jamieson Cox said it shows" but "Cleveland.com writer Troy L. Smith said it paled"
"thought it was one of her best singles that did not reach number one" => "thought it was one of her best singles not to reach number one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed. Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: nudge. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - apologies, I didn't realise you had replied last weekend. Always best to tag me as I regularly forget I have even reviewed articles so don't come back to check for replies :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from brachy0008

Hi there! Thanks for your help on So It Goes.... I decided to do this article, and it’s my first FAC (got some advice from an experienced FA nominator, ZKang123). I’ll try to dig up as much content as possible.

Image review

Image checks out.

Thanks for checking this.

Prose review

Since "Forever" was promoted to GA status in 2010, I think it may need more brushing up. I would also focus a bit more on wording than my GA reviews.

Anything specific you noticed? The article has been completely rewritten since 2010.

I'll try to find some comments on the prose. However, given the comment you addressed, I would mainly focus on the wordings.

Lead

~~The lead is a bit relatively short... You can try expanding it a bit more.~~

As the article is less than 2,500 words a two-paragraph lead aligns with MOS:LEADLENGTH. @Brachy0008: thanks for your comments so far. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

~~Not sure what it means by waltz form.~~
Changed "form" to "tempo"
~~55 of 76 → 55 out of 76~~
Changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release and commercial performance

Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap. Smith said it showed how Columbia was "trying to milk the success of Daydream". Critics from music magazines predicted the song would become a success. seems a bit choppy. Just a concern.
- Combined the first two sentences: "Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap and Smith said it showed how Columbia was 'trying to milk the success of Daydream'." Heartfox (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (minor)

I would mainly focus on the source formatting (I would be pissy about it, that's the tea) because I would be confident that the sourcing is verifiable.

FN 27: Since Penske Media Corporation runs Rolling Stone (which is reliable in culture), I’d assume that Gold Derby would be reliable as well. But best double check it. Also missing archive link.
- Gold Derby and the author Daniel Montgomery have been cited in books by quality publishers like NYU Press, McFarland, Northwestern University Press so I think that lends credibility.
- Added archive link
FN 31: Was RPM reliable?
- Yes, it was the main music magazine in Canada. There is a write-up about it here by Library and Archives Canada.
FN 49: Is KQED reliable?
- KQED has been cited in books by Cambridge University Press, ABC-Clio, Taylor & Francis

And that should be all the points I have. So, first reviewer has done all his points, now address the ones I have put out so far, and wait for the next reviewer to come by and review it.

@Brachy0008: does everything look ok now? Heartfox (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup. you passed my review. good luck for the second one ;D. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brachy0008: Thanks for your help! If you support the article to be FA, you can always add a "support" in bold text. Heartfox (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alr. i support its promotion to FA brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 09:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I would slightly revise this part, (Described as referencing music of the 1950s and 1960s), to say "Described by critics as" to attribute who is describing the song in this manner.
Revised
This is more of a clarification question, but has Mariah performed this song at any point after the Daydream World Tour? I would imagine that you have exhausted all coverage on this song, but I was more so just curious about this.
Haven't found anything
That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and the article mention how the song references music of the 1950s and 1960s. Would links to 1950s in music and 1960s in music be helpful or would they be too broad?
Linked
I was initially a bit confused by the Nick Krewen of The Spectator quote (i.e. "into the real world of human emotion with truly soulstirring performances") as I was uncertain of the comparison that the critic was making (i.e. moving in "the real world" from what and where). In the source, he specifies this transition from as moving "beyond the Barbie Doll plasticity of her debutant existence". To be clear, I am not saying that you should add this quote, but the critic is discussing a transition, and the article only mentions one part of it so a bit of its original context is lost.
Restored full quote
For this part, (suggested it was worse than "One Sweet Day" and "Open Arms"), I think it would be beneficial to say the years that these songs were released as it is not directly clear in the prose that these are the other singles from the same album, which is more so implied from the sentence placement.
Added years
This is more a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the need for File:Tokyo Dome (52480559907).jpg, particularly if the clear template is needed to avoid issues with it running into the next section heading. That and I am just not sure that an exterior shot of the venue is particularly helpful for readers. Again, it is up to you though.
Prefer to keep as it's better than nothing I guess
That is fair. As I said above, it is more of a matter of personal preference, and I can see the value of keeping the image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been enough covers that were notable enough to mention in the article? I remember Kristy Lee Cook performed it during her season of American Idol, which did get coverage in the Times Herald-Record, The Oregonian, Ledger-Enquirer, and Time (magazine). I'd say there's enough coverage to mention it, especially given Time has a solid paragraph on it.
Added a paragraph about the cover version
I think that the Macintosh link should be shortened to Mac. I believe that Mac is the more commonly-known name for the computer. I honestly was uncertain of what this was referencing until I clicked on the link. I do not really think of the computer with that name. The target article also does not use that name either.
"Macintosh" is given in the liner notes and the article notes it was the official name of the hardware until 1999, after "Forever" was recorded.
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I agree that it is best to stay true to what is in the liner notes. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these comments are helpful, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once everything has been addressed. I have always really enjoyed this song, but that could be because I happened to watch that season of American Idol while it was airing back in 2008 (and that makes me feel ancient thinking about it lol). I hope you are having a good start to your week and are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! 20 days in and only now is there an acknowledgement from Wikimedia that Newspapers.com access is messed up, so I wasn't able to search there for the Idol performance, but I did go on Google and ProQuest so I think the new paragraph is hopefully as good as can be anyways. Heartfox (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that there is at least an acknowledgement of the issues with Newspapers.com and although it is frustrating, hopefully a solution is being worked on and will be implemented soon. The new paragraph looks good to me as it focuses on the main points. I was debating on whether or not other details should be included, specifically Mariah Carey being a mentor in the episode and this being Kristy Lee Cook's elimination, but that seems more about the show than the song. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: Didn't find anything new on Newspapers.com). Heartfox (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I think the current version does a very good job with summarizing what the reader needs to know about the performance. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]