Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mariah Carey/archive1

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

The article was kept 11:27, 3 March 2007.

Mariah Carey[edit]

Messages left at Extraordinary Machine, Bio, and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.c The trivia section is not cited at all. Also, the quotes section should not exist at all as there is already a quote page for Mariah Carey in Wikiquote. Mr.Z-mantalk 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:TRIV the trivia section should either be merged or deleted as appropriate. Jay32183 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just went ahead and removed it. I'm not sure if this needed a FAR- the section should have been deleted on sight. It wasn't there when the article was promoted and hence its "information" wasn't considered necessary. I'm not sure what jumps into people's minds when they add trivia sections to long articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the 'See also' section - Most are already included in the template at the foot of the page, two were categories, the rest belong as categories only. + Ceoil 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless some one raises concerns about referencing or writing quality, and at first glance I don't see any stand-outs, this will probably close quickly. Jay32183 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is generally well written and sourced, citation templates are well used; see no issues here. + Ceoil 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the filmography section may be sort of redundant to the acting career section... filmography is a short and bare list. Toss it too? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest I think its ok, for example most articles on groups will mention all studio albums in the article body, but will still contain a discography (or selected discography). + Ceoil 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree, it's a quicker reference than reading through the article. Trebor 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This barely needs a FAR, just someone to look at the article as a whole and cut that which isn't needed/cited. Unless someone points out a glaring problem, I don't think this needs much attention. Trebor 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some blue-link URLs only in footnotes, and missing retrieval dates in References; if someone can fix, we should be able to close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better now. An evaluation of reliability of some sources is needed. As examples only, I see about.com, thuglifearmy.com, and mariahdaily.com - these (and perhaps others) don't appear to be RS. Pls doublecheck all sources. Self-published or unchecked commentary from fans and other individuals aren't RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to search for more reliable sources right now, so I've hidden the ones you mentioned in HTML comments. I'll try to spot and weed out any other unreliable sources soon. Extraordinary Machine 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passable — I don't see a need to move to FARC; remaining issues are minor. — Deckiller 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Deckiller. The about.com ref confirms a trivial endorsement claim that probably should be cut anyway. ThugLifeArmy.com is used to support speculation on an upcoming event, while mariahdaily.com backs up volunteer work Carey undertook. They are all used in peripheral contexts, article does not suffer from the claims been hidden within html. Ceoil 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The info cited to these sources does not appear outside of edit mode? Given your descriptions, I think you should cut the first two at least ("trivial" and "speculation"). Marskell 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have raised the suggestion on Extraordinary Machine's talk. Ceoil 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them completely. Extraordinary Machine 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; disagree with closing this FAR while so many unnecessary and unreliably-sourced claims remain commented out in the text. There's no reason for the number of HTML comments to remain in the text; they are reliably sourced, or they're not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; burying questionable sources is a band-aid. Can these be removed as much as possible? Marskell 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed them completely; I'll post them on the talk page soon. On an unrelated note, I think the music video screenshot Image:OSD.jpg and the DVD screenshot Image:Mariah Carey and children at Camp Mariah.jpg aren't "fair use" in the article because neither the music video nor the DVD are discussed (much less mentioned, in the case of the music video). I believe the screenshots should be removed, but I was wondering what everyone else thought. Extraordinary Machine 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're the one who provided the initial rationales, EM. Change of heart? I would call them acceptable, but I'm not a fair use pro. Marskell 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly no fair use pro either, but I think that without even the briefest discussion of the music video and/or DVD in the article, the images border on being used as decoration, which Wikipedia:Fair use criteria prohibits. (This is my fault, because I added them to the article in the first place.) When in doubt, I tend to err on the side of excluding unfree media from articles. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without discussing the music video or the DVD the images do not make a significant contribution and fail FUC#8. Jay32183 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had already addressed them. Please read my message above. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Looks fine to me. The References section could use some reorganization though. Its order is a bit random at the moment. Gzkn 08:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the images as there is no consensus for their Fair Use rationales here. With that done, I'm closing this. Marskell 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mariah_Carey/archive1&oldid=1078811572"