Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Butterfly (Mariah Carey 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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 July 2024 [1].

Butterfly (Mariah Carey song)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second single from Mariah Carey's 1997 album Butterfly. It was a commercial disaster for her, receiving the lowest pop radio airplay of any of her songs in the US at the time and ending a five-year run of top-ten singles in the UK. However, it was nominated for a Grammy. Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I think a link for programmed drums would be helpful if one is available.
Added
I am jumping ahead a bit, but are there any citations to support her performance of the song during The Celebration of Mimi. It also seems that Carey has performed the "Butterfly Reprise" version, and I think that should be included if possible.
Added
This part, (While separating from Mottola and leaving their home in December 1996, a melody and the words). reads that "a melody and the words" are the ones separating and leaving the home. To keep this as close as possible, I would say (While Carey separated from Mottola and left their home in December 1996) and change the later instance of Carey's to her.
Reworded to your suggestion
For File:Walter Afanasieff and Tamara Gee 1 (cropped).jpg, I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption.
Added
R&B should be linked on the first instance in the article.
Linked
I'm uncertain of the wording for this part, (Later in 2007, Carey specified she wrote the song). I get that "Later" is used to avoid repetition with the prior sentence, but I think saying something like (Carey specified in 2007 that she) would be better.
Reworded
I believe the audio sample would need a stronger caption to better justify its inclusion in the article.
Edited
Should there be any discussions in this article on how butterflies would later become one of Carey's trademarks?
I think this is more for the album article. Even in the song's video, it's mostly about horses and there are no butterflies lol.

Thank you for the response. I agree as it seems more pertinent to the album article, but I wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be beneficial to have a separate infobox for "Fly Away" (Butterfly Reprise)? I was only curious as it does have a separate subsection, which is the target for the redirect. I am not saying it is needed, but I wanted to ask as it was something that I thought about while reading the article.
I tested it out but I thought it was mostly duplicative as the section is only two paragraphs
Understandable. I had a feeling that would be the case, but I wanted to get your opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (The latter described Carey's persona), I believe it would be better to just say "Gray" instead of "The latter". It would be clearer so that way readers would not have to look back on the previous sentence.
Adjusted
I think it would be worth expanding on the KQED review as I find it too vague in its current form (i.e. what do they mean by "peculiar"?). The review itself is interesting, particularly in its interpretation that the music video is about bestiality, but nonetheless, more context would be useful here.
I'm inferring bestiality as a joke; added "due to the peephole and horse shots"
The bestiality part is definitely a joke so apologies if I was inferring that should be added lol. I was pointing that out mostly to say that this review was odd more than anything. Thank you for clarifying this in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all of the comments I have for now. I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I do really enjoy this song, although I admittedly do not really seek it out. I wish it was given more of a chance for commercial success. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments as always. I think the song is probably her most even mix of vocals, authenticity, and production on a ballad. Heartfox (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help, and I agree with you on the mixing. I will go through the article again tomorrow. I doubt that I will find much, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterfly (Mariah Carey album) article says that Carey performed "Butterfly" on Wetten, dass..? and Japanese television. It uses the Chris Nickson biography (i.e. page 170) to support this information. I do not have access to the source, but is this in the citation? If so, I think it would be useful to add here.
Unfortunately a lot of citations to that book are made up
I had a feeling that would be the case. Thank you for clarifying this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Citation 7, should Butterfly EP be in italics since it is the title of an EP?
Done

That is everything from me. Wonderful work with the article as always. I just have two clarification questions and once those are answered, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC for Kes (Star Trek), but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

M Butterfly.jpg – good.
Walter Afanasieff and Tamara Gee 1 (cropped).jpg – good.
Mariah Carey - Butterfly.ogg – good.

This passes the image review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Heartfox (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Reception for the music and lyrics was more varied" - this reads a little oddly to me. More varied than what? The previous sentence talks about critical reception for the song, so reception for the music and lyrics of the song was more varied than reception for the song....? Not really sure quite what is being said here...........
Decided to remove this from the lead to avoid confusion
Reading the first paragraph of the body, I think the lead should say ""Butterfly" was originally conceived as the house record "Fly Away"" rather than ""Butterfly" was originally conceived as the house record "Fly Away" (Butterfly Reprise)", as it wasn't originally conceived as a reprise
Changed
Afansieff image caption needs a full stop
Added
"They use the act of flying [...] and materializes it" - subject jumps from plural to singular mid-sentence
Changed to "Flying acts as a freedom metaphor and is materialized"
"In The Village Voice, Michael Musto considered them evidence Carey " =>" In The Village Voice, Michael Musto considered them evidence that Carey "
Changed
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

"with additional work in New York at Crave Studios, in California at WallyWorld, and in New York City at The Hit Factory" Why is New York separated on this list? If this is chronological then it should be more explicit. If it is not I suggest merging the two New York studies together.
I checked the lede and infobox: all of the info there is cited in the article.

Just one concern. Ping me when you get the chance to look at it. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I merged the New York studios. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support concern was addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

43 is linking to the wrong Wikipedia page. What's "lescharts.com"? Why do some Billboards have ProQuest things and others don't? Otherwise, I don't see anything else that needs correction - sourcing seems to rely on prominent websites, newspapers and magazines, and several biographies and books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link 43

Lescharts.com is the website officially licensing the French charts to publish online. As can be seen at the top of their website, " Nous sommes maintenant autorisés à publier les 'charts' français! Nous remercions IFOP et SNEP pour leurs accords." (they have an agreement with IFOP and SNEP). There was also a dicussion about these websites here.

ProQuest ids are provided when citing the physical magazine issues available on ProQuest, while ones that don't are when Billboard's website is cited.

Thanks for the source review, Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.