Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
1 withdrawn
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
==February 2011==
==February 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mangalorean Catholics/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)/archive2}}

Revision as of 21:57, 3 February 2011

February 2011

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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:57, 3 February 2011 [1].

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

Nominator(s): Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A feature-length animated sequel from Canada, released in March 1986. Getting this in before the 25th anniversary, now that it seems I've exhausted almost every possible source at my disposal. Wish me luck, Bears. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: File:CBMII soundtrack cover.jpg should not be used- album covers are fine in the article about the album, but usually not elsewhere. Both the screenshots use a template rationale which was recently deleted as invalid- the rationales should really be updated with purpose-written rationales, but you need to ask whether they are both needed. The inclusion of the new characters and the fourth-wall scene are important, and worthy of discussion, but are non-free images really needed? J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from contributor: A soundtrack article would be feasible, provided said release was notable enough. Apparently, that won't be the case in the foreseeable future; I don't think it ever charted on the Billboard 200. As for the rationales, I'll try to fix them (just in case the rest of the bunch survive the process). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Clarify what source ref 9 is citing
  • Ref 16: from the link to Take One I learn that the magazine ceased publication in 1979, and that this September 1996 article must therefore come from its successor, Take #1. This should be clarified, and the link piped accordingly.
  • Ref 37: Both links in the citation are to WP articles. What article is being quoted here?
  • To what citation does the apparently detached text above ref 56 relate?
  • Ref 66: What makes http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/carebears2.php a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 93: What makes http://www.movieretriever.com/faq#7 a high quality reliable source?
  • General point: for well-recognised newspapers (The New York Times, The Times, Toronto Star etc) it is not necessary to include the publisher's name. This should be given for local or lesser-known publications.

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW. Lacks an adequate analysis. No themes section. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't notice the Allusions section. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Laser brain 21:57, 3 February 2011 [2].

Mangalorean Catholics

Nominator(s): Joyson Noel (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for featured article because i think that it satisfies the criteria. Well written! Replete with free images and credible cross-references. This article currently holds GA status. Joyson Noel Holla at me 08:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it! I have requested the association to release it under "Creative Commons". I should get a response soon. Joyson Noel Holla at me 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - Wow. 11 Dabs! - See here for the list- please change your links to the actual article you meant. You also have tons of external link problems- this is showing 6 completely dead links- most of which are tagged in the article. There's also two that've vanished and are redirecting to the home page, 1 that can't even find the server to 404 on me, and a couple of minor redirects. --PresN 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comments I'm not going to do a proper review, because RL commitments mean I won't have the time, but a quick glance suggests that the prose is very choppy, with lots of short paragraphs. Also see WP:Lead, and note that refs in lead should be kept to a minimum since it summarises what should in any case be referenced in the main text. Any reason why the notable people aren't alphabetical? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable input, guys! I have done almost all the requested changes, with the exception of fixing two external links. See here. While i am able to access them and found no issue regarding credibility, the tool server indicates that these links have issues. I would appreciate if someone could let me know about what the problems are and also as to what can be done to rectify them. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Mainly minor; no spotchecks carried out, since the article is indergoing revision.

  • Ref 1 needs retrieval date
  • Use bolding in refs 77 and 121 is contrary to MOS
  • Ref 175: Nonstandard format. South Asia Religious News should be italicised
  • Ref 176: Comments on Crasta's book should not be cited to Crasta's personal website.
  • Ref 178: Who is the publisher?
  • Ref 186 needs a retrieval date (there may be others)
  • Ref 218: The link on Ayyappapanicker 1997 does not appear to be working
  • Ref 244: The Hindu should be italicised
  • Ref 245: High-quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 249: This looks like an individual's CV. Although it is cited for factual information only, I don't think it qualifies as a high-quality reliable source. The information can presumably be confirmed elsewhere.
  • Ref 256: This is a private website with no official standing in the Catholic hierarchy. The comments with regard to 249 apply here

Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! I’ve incorporated the necessary changes into the article. Now, I would really like someone to conduct a proper review, regarding whether this article satisfies the criteria or not, and if the latter’s the case, then what can be done to change that. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
  1. File:Kodialche Katholik.jpg is sourced to an image, File:Viren Rasquinha.jpg, which is a likely copyvio from here.
    Re-uploaded image to include a free image of Blasius D'Souza. However, the old image still appears. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Mulki Shenoy.jpg and File:Pais Prabhu.JPG - the given sources have no information on authorship, date of publication, etc. Just because a website doesn't include this information doesn't mean the photo was published "anonymously".
    The source for Pais Prabhu.JPG can be found here. I obtained a better version from the site's owner, Walter J. Pais. As for Mulki Shenoy, it is in public domain as it's copyright has expired. My arguments in it's favor can be found here. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:Mangalorean catholic migration.JPG is poor quality. Would it be possible to replace it with something better?
    I don't know how to convert it into SVG format. I would appreciate some help in this regard. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Kelly hi! 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I have issued a request. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Image has been converted into SVG format. This is the new version, File:Mangalorean catholic migration.svg. Let me know if you find any problems with this one. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:FranciscusXavier.jpg has no verifiable source or authorship information.
    Replaced image. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Mangalorean Catholic Sydney.jpg - OTRS still pending.
No response or OTRS permission sent for the five days. I have removed it from the article. Please delete it. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 08:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak supportProse comments (well, mostly)
  • You might consider asking an uninvolved editor to copyedit the article. I'm not sure the prose rises to the level of "brilliant".
  • "and gradually the Portuguese were unable to send the required number of missionaries to Mangalore." - this phrase appears twice in one section
Rewrote the entire para. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These three churches were highlighted by the Italian traveller" - he drew on them with a marker?
Changed sentence to “These three churches were mentioned by the Italian traveller Pietro Della Valle, who visited Mangalore in 1623.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sixth paragraph of "Migration era" needs to be rewritten, it has a number of issues.
Rewritten as stated earlier. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attacks [...] was also a cause of migration."
Changed sentence to “The attacks of the Maratha Empire on Goa, during the mid 16th century, precipitated the third major wave of migrations.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tipu Sultan is not spelt consistently. He is also mentioned several times to be Hyder's son; when done in close proximity, this is overly repetitious.
While we're at it, he is linked several times too. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the spelling, plus links. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Christians were alleged to have helped General Mathews with a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-.[56] He summoned a Portuguese officer and several Christian priests from Mangalore to suggest the punishment for the Mangalorean Catholics for treachery." Presumably "He" is not General Mathews; please clarify. (My money is that it's Hyder, but he's not mentioned in the paragraph yet.)
Changed sentence to “Hyder summoned a Portuguese officer and several Christian priests from Mangalore to suggest the punishment for the Mangalorean Catholics for treachery.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tippu decided to banish the Mangalorean Catholic community from his kingdom, and hold them captive at Seringapatam, the capital of his empire." Is he banishing them (i.e. driving them out), or merely rounding them up and imprisoning them?
Changed sentence to “Tipu decided to banish the Mangalorean Catholic community from their lands, and imprison them at Seringapatam, the capital of his empire.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. I see banishment as a decree that gives at least some time for those affected to leave the area; did Tipu in fact give them any time to leave before he started rounding them up? (Cases of banishment I'm familiar with from colonial America operated this way -- banished persons were given time to leave, and only arrested if they returned.) Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the word "banish" means to forcibly send someone away from his native place as punishment. It does not necessarily mean that some time was alloted to them, for instance, to pack their stuff and sell their lands. Tipu wanted to round up the Catholics and move them to Seringapatam. The whole idea was to teach them a lesson. Giving them a warning in advance would have failed to make a point. It would have alerted the Catholics who would then have time to hide or leave. As such, the roundup was meant to be a unpleasant surprise to the Catholics. It's success depended on them being caught unaware. I noticed that the article had not mentioned this earlier, and so i have mentioned it now.


Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. Magic♪piano 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, not a prose issue: did any Mangalorean Catholics escape Tipu's sweeps? What happened to them?
Yes! In spite of the secrecy and element of surprise surrounding the roundup, an estimated 7,000 Catholics did manage to escape the initial sweeps, and were in hiding in Tipu’s kingdom at the time of the roundup. However, this does not mean that they successfully managed to remain hidden till the captivity’s end on May 4, 1795. Their fate is unknown. One of the books used as a source which is in my possession, “Sarasvati’s Children” by Alan Machado Prabhu, does not shed any light on this matter. My personal opinion is that it would have been virtually impossible for such a large number to successfully remain hidden for so long. So, most were probably caught, while a lucky few managed to escape to Tellicherry, Cannanore and Cochin, or succeeded in remaining hidden within South Canara itself. All this is mentioned in the Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam article. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention should be made here: "Some Catholics managed to escape arrest; the fate of many is unknown" or some such. Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i'll decline to do it for the following reasons:
  • Firstly, the source does not state that their fate is unknown. It just doesn't mention their fate.
  • Secondly, there is a likelihood that their fate is known. During my next trip to Mangalore, i plan on purchasing an old book written on the captivity by the Mangalorean historian, S.N. Saldanha. Hopefully, it will shed some light on this matter.
  • Thirdly, mentioning that 7,000 Catholics escaped the initial sweeps is unnecessary, in my opinion. This was a small occurrence and the section is just a summary of the article dedicated to this topic. So, let's just stick to the 60,000 who are known to have been captured and their fate. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Praxy Fernandes [...] stated that 40,000 Christians were not kept manacled" (emphasis added) - this is the first reference to manacles; why is it important to report Fernandes' negative claim?
Changed sentence to “Historian Praxy Fernandes, author of Storm over Seringapatam: the incredible story of Hyder Ali & Tippu Sultan, states that contrary to popular belief, 40,000 Christians were not kept manacled in the dungeons of Seringapatam.” Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a few did take advantage of the siege and escaped to Coorg and Kerala. This is mentioned twice in the article, both in the “Post-migration era and Captivity” section and the “Demographics” section. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1836-7, when the political situation in Portugal was in turmoil" - at least link "in turmoil" to something appropriate, even if you don't elaborate on what the turmoil is.
Linked to this section of the "History of Portugal (1834–1910)" article, as there is no separate article for this turmoil. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historically, the Mangalorean Catholic diet was completely Vegetarian" - Vegetarian is not a proper noun.
Not so sure about that in Indian English. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a number of other minor issues not mentioned above, like it's/its and missing/extra commas, that require a copyeditor's attention.

--Magic♪piano 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a request here. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my interjections! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, dude! Any suggestion is welcome. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. Magic♪piano 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good pending completion of copyedit. Magic♪piano 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been copy-edited by User:Pol430. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the copyedit improved things to some extent; however, considering the number of further issues I found, I can only weakly support; I think the prose would still benefit from a more thorough (and deeper) going over. (I also tagged two things that should be clarified.) Magic♪piano 16:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit! I have clarified the para:
Joyson Noel Holla at me! 09:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images This may have some relevance to this article Fasach Nua (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added my Strongly Oppose vote to this ridiculous proposition. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Laser brain 17:14, 3 February 2011 [3].

Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)

Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to meet FA criteria. This article was copy-edited by my friend Sarastro1, who is unfamiliar with the subject and text. Thanks everyone for participating. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mcbutterfly.jpg -> May be found at the following website: http://www.amazon.com/Butterfly-Mariah-Carey/dp/B000002BQK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1284400457&sr=8-1 --> Make it encyclopedic
File:Mariah-carey-the-roof.jpg -> Fails WP:NFCC#1 (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created)) Exist many images of Carey's face; WP:NFCC#8; WP:NFCC#10 (The name of each article ... in which fair use is claimed for the item) it only has the rationale of The Roof (Back in Time).
Read the rest of the article. It has sufficient rational and critique to be there.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox
ALT needed for consistency
Released; September 11, 1997 (UK)/ September 16, 1997 (U.S.) -> Do we need this? put the first release, the information have to be somewhere
(New York City)[1] -> Suggesting (New York City, New York), and remove the source.
  • Lead
Butterfly, the sixth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey, was released on September 16, 1997, by Columbia Records. -> Sounds awkward, why not the traditional Butterfly is the sixth studio album by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. It was released on September 16, 1997, by Columbia Records.
Butterfly deviated from the formula of Carey's older work -> Which work
the album received positive reviews from music critics -> The article notes: The album received generally positive reviews
."[2] -> No sources in the lead
A quote needs direct attribution and sourcing, even in the lead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The album pushed her music into a hip-hop and R&B sound, -> already commented
Though released during Carey's conflict with Sony Music, the album became a commercial success How the conflict with her label be related to the album's success?
Five singles -> link single
"Honey", the album's lead single ... The album's fourth single, "My All", -> and the second and the third?
The lead is to give a main picture of the article's main points, not little nit picks. For that read the rest of the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are quick-comments only from the lead. I'll take my review later this week. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Seems like Nathan won't learn how is the FAC process. Also that comment makes me wonder if "this album isn't hip hop" why it says "R&B, hip-hop, pop"?. If its author insist and persist in doing uncooperative actions, I won't waste my time reviewing his articles. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<Off-topic discussion moved to talk page> --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's see if this article is a featured article per WP:FA?:
  • 1a - Maybe
recognised -> American subject
in the air. her left
owing to its heavy hip-hip influences.
  • 1b - Maybe
  • 1c - Maybe
Critics saw Carey's new production team as a form of revenge on Mottola and Sony Music.[2] -> Sony is never mentioned in those pages
Originally, Carey had not planned to tour, after receiving mixed reviews in the US for her Music Box Tour. ->[citation needed]
  • 1d - No, the worst point
Very biased. It contains irrelevant and unneutral information of its singles. It talks alot of "Honey" and "My All", sometimes of "Butterfly" and very few of the other two singles and others songs.
The tour was a critical and commercial success. Both fans and critics praised the quality of the show and Carey's vocals.[31] -> Even it is sourced, is it neutral?
  • 1e - Yes
  • 2a - No
"Honey", the album's lead single, topped the charts in the US and Canada, and reached the top-five in New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom -> Irrelevant for the lead of the album, relevant for the lead of the song
  • 2b - Yes
  • 2b - Yes
  • 3 - No
  • 4 - No (also see Indopug comment)
Carey also faced media criticism over her choice of producers and several newspapers linked Carey romantically to several rappers, suggesting these relationships influenced her decisions. -> Off-topic/ Source never state this in pages 99 or 100 / Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (why an unauthorized biography is reliable for those information?)
The remix for "Honey" featured rapping lead vocals from Da Brat and Mase, and some verses were rapped by Combs himself. The track was very different from Carey's previous recordings, and was described by author Chris Nickson as "street Hip-Hop music, with a booming bass."[5] -> Irrelevant for this article
The promotion section talks about how the singles were promoted, not the album
I don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is exactly sourced in the book, I can assure it. Next, that "personal" info can sure be sourced by a biography page as it gets info from various interviews, for example, Nickson and Shapiro interviewed Walter Afanasieff, the man who co-wrote most of Carey's biggest hits. He was around during those turbulent times. Next, it is relevant. We need to know the background information for the album, whatever has to do with it. Talking about Carey's "different" sound, staff and environement that was "directly" crucial to the album's development is precisely needed and relevant. Also, how is the "Honey Remix" info irrelevant? It was part of the album, I don't see how thats irrelevant. Lastly, the promotion needs to discuss the album's promotion as a whole, not songs. This is an album article not a song one. Also, Indopug's comments were so far resolved, letting you know. And That other info is not irrelevant, the song's and their success are a direct extension of the album. Thats all.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly because there is far too much information here that is better suited for sub-articles, i.e., the song articles. In particular, the two sections about the music videos have little to do directly with the album. Similarly, the singles section is too detailed; IMO a paragraph in "Chart performance" would suffice. Allmusic's and Slant's reviews are retrospectives, yet you quote them before contemporary reviews by the Times, the Voice and Entertainment Weekly (and don't make a distinction between the two anywhere), what gives?—indopug (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, those succession boxes need to be cited, especially for the preceding and succeeding albums. Else, they have to be removed.—indopug (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the song info is only one section and it is what composes the album, so its necessary. I think it needs to be there. As for the music video, I didn't just add a synopsis for all five of them, I noted the important or notable ones and their controversies. Do you really think thst because something has a bit too much info for your liking that it deserves an oppose? Please reconsider.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you summarised the influence the music videos released from Butterfly had on the Carey's career, that's fine. The first two sentences of "Reaction to 'Honey' video", for example, are relevant, but the rest has nothing to do with this album as a whole. Ditto for the "Music videos" section. Again, note that music videos are not a part of the album; if you bought the CD in 1997, you wouldn't be getting the videos. Music videos are released to promote individual songs, and need to be discussed only in the context of those songs. Besides all that info is completely redundant to The_Roof_(song)#Music_video and Honey_(Mariah_Carey_song)#Music_video.
I refuse to "reconsider" my oppose, because grounded in WP:FA?, especially #4: "[the article] stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail".—indopug (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I removed both.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will revisit soon with a detailed review.—indopug (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—the prose isn't good enough. Everywhere I look there are issues: logic, typography, grammar ... Here are a few at random:
  1. "Five singles were released from Butterfly; some featured as airplay-only singles, while others were released only in certain territories"—I don't understand how these two points are related to each other logically.
  2. "Carey's thirteenth number one single on the"—13th number-one, especially in a space-scarce caption. Don't we normally use numerals for > one-digit numbers? I see 14th, 21 weeks, etc.
  3. "was certified five-times platinum"—unsure of the need for the hyphen.
This is correct, as this they are coherent; but it could be better written as "5× P/platinum"-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Butterfly received generally positive reviews from music critics."
  2. Fair use claims for the audio excerpts: it would help if the caption or the related main text commented explicitly on the sound. For example, "A sample from the song, featuring the heavy hip-hop influence that began incorporating itself into Carey's music." What exactly is the hip-hop influence in aural terms? What does a dummy like me look for when I listen? "A sample from "Butterfly". The song was very personal, and was described by Carey as "her best work, and most heartfelt ballad."" That second one shows no educational value; I'm not sure it complies with NFCC#8 and #3b, if I remember without checking them. Tony (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2011 (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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2011&oldid=411862181"