Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song)/archive1
- 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [1].
- Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a lesser-known Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey collaboration from 1998, which is actually a cover of an even lesser-known 1986 single by Rainy Davis. Sony allegedly withdrew the US commercial single at the last minute so as to not cannibalize sales of "When You Believe", Carey's collaboration with Whitney Houston. Based on the song's critical reception, people believed this was the most sexualized Carey had ever come across. I'm not really a fan of the song but it was interesting to research and write about. The timeline of how the song came to be is a bit iffy due to various sources stretching decades, but I believe it is worded accurately. I hope to address any comments and suggestions for the article :) Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Aoba47
editAddressed comments
|
---|
I am uncertain about the article's current structure. Currently, it does not have a lead, and instead, it starts off with the Rainy Davis version and goes into the Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey versions. I would instead have a clearly defined lead and then go into each version in the article itself. I just do not think the current structure is beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I have a few questions about the structure and lead and I have included some comments on the article after doing a brief read-through and I will go more in-depth in the future. As you've already said, this is an odd because the song is only notable because of the cover. Hopefully, this FAC will help editors who work on similar articles in the future. I have made the following edits as I will make minor copy-edits to avoid adding too much here. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope this review is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This should conclude my review, but once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to just make sure. I hope these comments are helpful and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
|
Thank you for addressing my comments and for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I'd recommend pinging ChrisTheDude to inform him about the work you've put into this article. I agree with you about the song. I'm no crazy about it, but I also find the history surrounding it to be fascinating and the video is simply great. I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer the original. It's very much of it's time, but there's something about it that makes me smile. Best of luck with your FAC! It would be nice to see a Mariah Carey song have a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your help with and support of the article. Heartfox (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude
edit- Agreed, as it stands the article structure is not right - it has literally no lead, instead the section about the original version is placed where a lead should be. You need to write a lead which summarises the whole article (which will in fact almost entirely be about the cover, with probably just one or two sentences about the original), then make the brief section about the original the first section of the body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I have written a paragraph that hopefully summarizes the article. Please let me know what you think. Heartfox (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude, just wondering if you had time to review what changes have been made in regard to the article structure. Heartfox (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Further comments from me
edit- ""Sweetheart" is a song recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." - I would say ""Sweetheart" is a song originally recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." given that most of the article is (rightly) about a cover version
- "American singer Mariah Carey co-produced a cover version with American rapper" => "American singer Mariah Carey recorded a cover version with American rapper"
- "Carey felt recording a song she liked" => "Carey felt that recording a song she liked"
- "whom she had collaborated with on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"." => "with whom she had collaborated on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"."
- "David Drake said the song underperformed" => "David Drake said that the song underperformed"
- Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
edit- "produced it
alongwith Dorothy Kessler" - "Hip hop pop" - hip hop is not a proper noun so it does not need to be capitalized (see both infoboxes).
- "it experienced minor success on on the former" - double on.
- "The song peaked at numbers twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-seven, respectively, on such charts published by Cash Box, Billboard, and Radio & Records magazines" - lose the such.
- "She decided to include four new songs" - I would get rid of "decided to" if she did in fact include four new songs.
- "released in July that year" -> "released that July"
- as Carey sings that "A full moon... - either remove that and add a comma after sings or decapitalize that.
- The third single from Life in 1472,[33] So So Def and Columbia Records jointly released "Sweetheart" - the way this sentence is phrased, it means So So Def and Columbia Records were the third single from Life in 1472.
- Spin reported that DreamWorks and Arista Records were concerned that the song's release, let alone a retail availability, might jeopardize the success of their impending release, Carey's duet with Whitney Houston, "When You Believe", as Carey would be competing with herself on record charts.[38] Feels overlong and crowded with commas.
- "Joan Anderman said Dupri added street cred to the album" - street cred is colloquial. If the author used it that way, use it in quotes.
- There's a missing space between "critics." and "The Baltimore Sun's"
- "Los Angeles Times critic Natalie Nichols found her vocals both sexier and more realistic" - remove "both" as it adds little to the meaning.
- "In the United States, Billboard thought it would be the most-played song on both pop and R&B radio stations" - lose "both" as per above. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your helpful comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Image review
editI am unsure that we can justify two non-free images here; and even if yes you'd need a stronger rationale than the one currently used. Everything else seems fine. Only the Bilbao image has ALT text, which seems OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. All of the images have alt text. I have edited the Bilbao Museum alt text to hopefully make it more specific. An image of a music release's physical artwork is not normally seen as unjustified in infoboxes in an article about the song, and the rationale is from a template. Can you clarify what action you would like me to take? Heartfox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's two images. One is usually considered OK; with two I wonder if both are needed & significantly contribute to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the first image. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's two images. One is usually considered OK; with two I wonder if both are needed & significantly contribute to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Elias
editWill look at the article's prose :) I have made some copyedits that I did because I felt they were uncontentious enough that we'd be wasting time if I made such minor/simple comments here. Obviously feel free to revert some changes you disagree with.
Oh, and if you have the time, a review in my current song FAC would be appreciated :D Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Lead
- Not sure if this hyphenated neologism "Hype Williams-directed" reads as professional.
- Reworded.
- "snyths" I fixed this typo, which was in the lead section. I looked out for any other typos, but I think that was it - feel free to reread the article because I likely might have missed one
- Thanks for catching that.
- Instead of saying "Davis's 1987 studio album of the same name" you can just say "Davis's 1987 studio album Sweetheart" as it is shorter, plus you don't use this kind of verbiage in the prose itself.
- Reworded.
- Linking "record chart" feels like OL here
- Removed.
Original
- "expand beyond their traditional dance club-aligned songs by finding and issuing ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "expand beyond promoting songs made for dance clubs by finding and issuing ones suitable for radio airplay"? A couple reasons for this change:
- "expand beyond their traditional" I don't think we need "traditional" here. "Expand beyond X" already implies that X is a tradition or well-established habit
- "dance club-aligned" similar concerns with "Hype Williams-directed"
- "ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "ones suitable for radio airplay" Usually when I see someone say is a radio song or a radio hit, they say "suitable for radio" or "made for radio" or something along those lines
- Reworded.
- "According to a 2020 Billboard article" do we need to explicitly attribute Billboard for saying the song had minor success on R&B single charts? It doesn't exactly feel like an opinion, which is usually what we attach attributions to.
- I think it just makes clear that it is a retrospective view, but if the article was published in 1987, it could have been classified differently.
- The third paragraph discussing the critical reception has a slight "X said this, Y said that" formula to it, which often makes paragraphs discussing reception dull. However I am giving this one a pass since the OG version didn't really attract a large amount of reviews that could have made summarizing consensus easier.
- Thank you for understanding.
Cover version (background)
- "included four new songs" perhaps specify she included it in #1's tracklist. It sounds somewhat awkward not explicitly stating where she included the songs
- I believe this is stated at the end of the paragraph "it appeared as the first song on #1's.."
Cover version (music and lyrics)
- Is there any reason why the lyrics are discussed in the section about Carey's cover, instead of in the one about the original version which feels more natural? Since we're talking about a cover, I assume the lyrics would not at all change.
- Unfortunately there were no sources about the original song that discussed its lyrics. There are some lyrical differences too.
- Ah. Well, then the lead should be changed to reflect that - it discusses the lyrics in the context of the original song when the prose does otherwise.
- Unfortunately there were no sources about the original song that discussed its lyrics. There are some lyrical differences too.
- The sentence about the remixes feels more suited in the release subsection
- Moved.
Cover version (release)
- "might cannibalize sales" this wording is not at all encyclopedic and reads more like what I would see in a magazine or newspaper. Would suggest changing to "negatively affect sales"
- It is an actual concept though. There is an article at Cannibalization (marketing).
- Oh ... thanks for pointing that out. My bad 😅 In that case, we can add a wikilink to that article so that other folks don't get surprised like I did.
- It is an actual concept though. There is an article at Cannibalization (marketing).
- "in advance of" nitpick, but I'd prefer "in anticipation of"
- Reworded.
- can we clarify if the UK vinyl contains only "Sweetheart", or does it contain other songs with it?
- Added.
- Perhaps explain that the digital EP contains a bunch of Old Carey covers including "Sweetheart" to explain why this sentence is relevant in the article
- It is an extended play of various remixes of the song. The new introductory sentence of this paragraph hopefully acts to clarify.
Cover version (critical reception/commercial performance)
- "Carey's vocal performance allowed her to come across as sultrier" does not seem supported by the source which reads "On the engaging dance track, 'Sweetheart,' he coaxes more of a sultry R&B vocal from Mariah Carey and reins in her histrionic tendencies." If it read "more sultry R&B vocals" I might give it a pass, buuut... the vocals are sultrier than what, exactly?
- Reworded.
- Reading the Vibe source that says "Mariah drops her vocal bucket deeper into her well of soul", I don't get the impression that they are calling her voice soulful, but maybe that is just because a lot of magazine commentary likes to sacrifice coherency for flowery purple prose. Either way, saying that her vocals were soulful does not add a lot of substance to the commentary, IMO.
- I often find that annoying with magazines as well. Literally multiple paragraphs and it's just a bunch of flowery language that cannot even be incorporated into the article.
- Apologies for this comment... I am concerned with this section as a whole, finding that both paragraphs lack cohesion. It reads more like a formulaic list of various comments from a tray of publications rather than an engaging, semi-narrative summary about how critics analyzed the work. WP:RECEPTION provides wonderful guidance for how to write about critical response more effectively.
- I took the liberty of overhauling the section in a personal sandbox, but I want to get your thoughts on how it reads first before it can be transferred into the actual article. Since you likely have access to the sources unlike me, it is up to you to determine whether my edits preserved the intended meaning of your writing and the sources you cited.
- I have incorporated many changes.
- "commercial song" can we clarify what this means for any unfamiliar readers?
- Reworded.
Cover version (music video)
- Would suggest adding a {{clear}} template after the last paragraph of the "Music video" subsection. There is a weird space on my screen between "Credits adapted..." and the bullet list
- Added.
- "sweetheart" (lowercase) in quotes here feels off - can we reword it to "lover" to avoid the quotation marks?
- Reworded.
@Your Power: thank you for such an extensive review. I have made many changes. Heartfox (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: thank you for responding fairly quickly! I was a bit nervous cause I found myself leaving more comments than I expected tbh. I have left replies to two pending concerns above. Once they're addressed I'll reread through everything again and see if I will be supporting
Best, Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)- I have addressed your replies above. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! I have made my final copyedits to this article - as always feel free to revert some changes you don't agree with. Now with that settled, I feel confident to support promotion on the basis of prose quality. In terms of comprehensiveness, while I do wish we got more commentary on the original version's composition (especially the lyrics), it technically stil is a major aspect of the topic that is successfully mentioned in the article. Furthermore, I understand that some subjects are simply lacking in the relevant sources or literature to achieve the traditional sense of "comprehensive", and that Mariah's version received more media coverage. As long as I've left an article with no questions asked - this one is no different - then the criteria is satisfied enough for me. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! I have made my final copyedits to this article - as always feel free to revert some changes you don't agree with. Now with that settled, I feel confident to support promotion on the basis of prose quality. In terms of comprehensiveness, while I do wish we got more commentary on the original version's composition (especially the lyrics), it technically stil is a major aspect of the topic that is successfully mentioned in the article. Furthermore, I understand that some subjects are simply lacking in the relevant sources or literature to achieve the traditional sense of "comprehensive", and that Mariah's version received more media coverage. As long as I've left an article with no questions asked - this one is no different - then the criteria is satisfied enough for me. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
- I have addressed your replies above. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Source review
editFootnote numbers refer to this version.
- You have three uses of cite AV media notes: you give Mariah Carey as the artist in 46 but don't name the artist in the other two. Either way is fine, but it should be consistent. FYI 46 also has a hidden category error, Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes). This doesn't have to be fixed for FAC but if you're editing those citations anyway you may want to be aware of it.
That's the only formatting issue I can see. Will look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Made consistent.
- What makes ratedrnb.com a reliable source? It seems to have been launched as a one-person site and it's not clear it's much more than that now.
- Switched to Newsday.
- The archive links for 62, 63, 67, 76 and 83 are not working for me; they may just be very slow. Can you check they're working for you?
- They do load but are slow for me as well.
That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the source review! I believe I have addressed everything. Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.