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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 March 2024 [1].

---

Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mariah Carey song that had a great potential of becoming a number one single, but never even received a chance. I don't really listen to it that often as I haven't lived enough to appreciate the lyrics, but it is definitely a high quality song, and hopefully the article is too ;) I started working on this article in 2022, but then I procrastinated on writing the critical reception section for a year ..... so here we are in 2024! Thanks in advance for any comments, Heartfox (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Recusing to review.

• "The track features rapping by two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone." This is a bit ambiguous at the moment. It reads as if two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone are four people. Would "features rapping by Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone, members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony,.." make it better?

  Changed to your suggestion

• "Retrospectively, "Breakdown" is regarded as a turning point in Carey's musical direction" - in what sense is it considered a turning point?

  Added that this is in regard to a hip hop musical direction

• "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were provided with cannabis which they passed out from after getting high." "getting high" is too informal and idiomatic. How about: "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis, leading them to become intoxicated and pass out."?

  Changed to "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis which they passed out from after becoming intoxicated"

  @FrB.TG and Heartfox: I think "high" is the better word. Yes, it's not technically formal diction, but it's also universally the word people would use to describe the effects of cannabis (or most recreational drugs). Nobody would ever say, "I got intoxicated on cannabis". WP:FACR requires that writing be "of a professional standard". That does not mean we cannot use informal diction when appropriate. As some examples of professional writing that uses "high" to describe the effects of cannabis:

• "Are Edibles Safer Than Smoking?". nytimes.com. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
• "How Marijuana Affects Your Mind and Body". WebMD. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
• "Highly Potent Weed Has Swept The Market, Raising Concerns About Health Risks". NPR. 15 May 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
• "A powerful new form of medical marijuana, without the high". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 March 2024.

These are all high-quality mainstream sources, all of which certainly meet the standard of writing to a professional level. By insisting on replacing "high" with "intoxicated", you've made the article more difficult to understand by using a highly unusual choice of vocabulary. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some critics thought the song detailed the demise of Carey's marriage" - not sure it's common to refer to the end of a marriage as its "demise" when it's usually used to mean the death of a person. Why not just "end"?

  Changed to "end"

• "Had "Breakdown" been released to retail, the single would have broken Carey's streak of four consecutive number ones on the Billboard Hot 100." Not sure I understand this properly. What does its release to retail have to do with the single's potential failure to reach number one? Was it a sure thing that the song, if released as a single at the time, would not have topped the chart and hence broken Carey's streak?

  Changed "would have" to "likely would have". "Breakdown" had no airplay from pop radio so unless it sold an absurd amount of copies it wouldn't have gone to number one. The Hot 100 was still the "pop chart" until December 1998. I tried to explain this in the following sentence "chart rules stipulated that songs required retail releases to appear and that airplay from R&B radio stations was not a factor"

• Not a fan of the image caption in the music video section. Just saying that a certain scene was analyzed isn't very informative. FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Specified

FrB.TG, thanks for the helpful comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: nudge. Heartfox (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami[edit]

Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look reliable. I see nothing flagged by Cite Unseen as unreliable except for the interview on YouTube, but that should be fine as a primary source. Spot check will now (finally) follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

• [8]: Checks out.
• [14]: All good here.
• [27]: Ditto.
• [33]: Ditto.
• [49]: Ditto.
• [56]: Ditto.
• [66]: Ditto.

I feel comfortable, with this sample size, in supporting this nomination. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment: You should search the Internet Archive's Books to Borrow library and link any copies of the books you cited. Here's one. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this! All of the books freely available already have an Open Library link given :) Heartfox (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

• I have a question about this part, (Before they wrote and performed their raps). The "raps" phrasing seems a bit off to me. I am more accustomed to seeing this worded as "verses". Is "raps" a common descriptor for this kind of thing?

  In the liner notes their contributions are not listed as a verse but as "rap 1", "rap 2", etc, so I think labelling it as a verse would be inappropriate

  That makes sense. I tried to phrase my comment more as a question and less as a suggestion because I had guessed that it was just something that I was not familiar with. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure about the wording in this part, (after it did not issue a standalone commercial single in the United States). It is not clear what is being referenced by "a standalone commercial single". I'd revise it to something like (after the label did not issue "Breakdown" as a standalone commercial single in the United States). I think the chronology for the lead is a bit odd though as readers would have already seen in the first paragraph that this song was released as a single and now it is being said that it was not.

  Clarified as "after it did not release the song to retail outlets in the United States"

• Did Carey only perform this song on Butterfly World Tour?

  No, but later performances were not mentioned in secondary sources aside from 2006 which I have now added to the article

  That is understandable. Not all performances of a specific song are mentioned in secondary, reliable sources. I had run into a similar issue while working on Tamar Braxton's songs. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question about this sentence: (It received the best critical reviews of her career up to that point.) The current placement seems to imply that Carey's choice to experiment with hip hop music lead to this praise and contributed to her confidence to continue doing so, but is this clearly stated in the source? If so, I think it would be best to more explicitly say this in the prose.

  It is not implied that the hip hop elements in Daydream were the reason for the praise, but the overall reception gave Carey the go-ahead to go further the next album. Shapiro says: "Butterfly was Mariah Carey's coming-of-age album. The creative rush of being out from under the control of her husband and record producers and the critical acceptance of Daydream had given Mariah the confidence to delve deeper into the hip-hop world." I have combined two sentences to establish the link more explicitly in the prose.

  I believe the edit has helped to clarify this point. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, (and they began studying the rap group's discography), would a link to Bone Thugs-n-Harmony discography be helpful?

  Added

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Both he and Combs had already worked with Carey on another Butterfly track, "Honey".) I read this as saying that "Honey" was recorded before any work was done on "Breakdown". Would that be accurate?

  Yes, the wording is intentional. Stevie J says in the Essence article: "When we first met, we did 'Honey'", indicating that "Breakdown" was recorded after

  Thank you for the response. I just wanted to double-check that my reading of that part was correct. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what this part, (as they did not comprehend her career), means. Could you clarify this for me?

  "Changed "career" to "level of fame"

• I have a comment on this part, (Affected by reggae and doo-wop,). Would "influenced" be a better word choice than "affected"? I do not think I have heard "affected" in this context (i.e. a musician being affected by different genres).

  Changed to "influenced"

• I am not sure about this sentence: (Columbia did not issue a commercial single in the United States after the song failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio.) It reads like they did not issue a single at all in the US after this, and it is rather vague. I think it should be clarified.

  Rephrased to "After 'Breakdown' failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio, Columbia did not release it for sale in the United States"

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read the article again just to make sure I have not missed anything. I will be keeping my review focused on the prose however. I am glad that you nominated this song for a FAC. I do enjoy this song on a technical level, but it is not one of my favorite Mariah Carey songs to be honest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful review, Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! I will look through the article again momentarily just to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Carey references "Breakdown in "With You"; she talks about it in this interview with Genius around the 54:40 mark. This reference was also picked up on by NPR and Pitchfork. Is it notable enough for inclusion?

  I think it is better suited for the "With You" article. Heartfox (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Understandable. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one very minor question, but other than that, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Mariah Carey & Bones Thugs-N-Harmony - Breakdown.ogg is representative of the song? I don't have a good feeling about File:Mariah Carey Breakdown Music Video.png - in my experience, WP:NFCC#8 requires non-free images to be central to the article's topic and here it's mostly a subtopic. ALT text is missing or describing the image rather than its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the image review. It's the final chorus, so it includes multiple elements that were previously present at various times, but now they all occur at the same time at the end of the song. It is as representative of the song as a whole as possible (ie background vocals, instrumentation, vocal performance which received critical commentary in adjacent text).

The music video is central to the "article topic" as the music video is one of the main ways the song was consumed by the public. I am confused by this interpretation of NFCC8; is non-free content not allowed in article sections? I don't understand why the wording "article topic" would exclude an article's "subtopics". An "article topic" naturally includes a series of subtopics, and a music video is one of the key subtopics as it has a two-paragraph section. I wouldn't include a screenshot for a music video that received little commentary, but omitting a screenshot of something that received commentary from three different secondary sources that is described in adjacent text would reduce reader's understanding of the article topic, as marketing/visualization of the song (via a music video) and critical analysis of the song's music video (via a music video) is central to understanding the song as a whole.

The alt text is present and says "Mariah Carey performing cabaret with two background dancers". Can you clarify what the issue is? Heartfox (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the criterium is "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and it's often debatable whether a single section can satisfy the "significant" part. The thing I see about that ALT text is that there is probably a style or so that needs to be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand where you are coming from, but I think the image meets the NFCC8 guidance at WP:NFC#CS. The image "is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article", as three secondary sources refer to Carey's cabaret performance in the section. For "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article" – yes, excluding it would not make clear what the secondary source commentary is referring to. "The significance of the understanding afforded by the" image is present as the music video was a key way the song was promoted. The music video is not a minor aspect; the amount of secondary source coverage in the section (including mention in an academic journal article) indicates that it is worthy of understanding to understand the song as a whole.

Regarding a "style or so that needs to be described" in the alt text, I am still unclear what you want me to add. Per WP:ALT, "Since it cannot contain inline citations, it must not convey any contentious point, or material not obvious to any reader". I genuinely don't know what "style" I would be referring to here, can you provide an example? Heartfox (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what information is a sighted reader supposed to get out of the image? That would be needed in the ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the alt text to "Mariah Carey performing cabaret on a bentwood chair wearing a black sequin halter top next to two background dancers". Heartfox (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK on the ALT text, but I'd like a second opinion on the NFCC#8 issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, could we trouble you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image could potentially be justified; I don't think the current FUR does it. What is the potential misinterpretation it mentions? What's the benefit of an image vs ((external media)), given that the source is freely accessible? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to remove the image to move on from this. Heartfox (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jo-Jo, is this GTG now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Images down the article still need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What images do not have alt text? Heartfox (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I must have missed some ALT text. It's OKish, but I think that the sample also needs one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Template:Listen the alt paramater is only used if there is an image displayed with the file. Heartfox (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

With everything addressed, I support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias[edit]

After recently listening to the new "Yes, And?" remix, I find it fitting that I will be reviewing another Mariah Carey article after some time. Expect comments this weekend ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 03:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power are you still expecting to do a review of this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: yes; apologies. Allow me some time later today ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A complementary, brief explanation of middle of the road music in the article would help

  Added a note

• To be consistent, mention "Dreamlover" was from the album Music Box ; other mentions of Carey's songs in the article state on which album they were release

  Added

• Optional, but you can connect the sentences about "dreamlover" and daydream so that the transition between them is less abrupt

  Prefer to keep it separate

• Is her choice of incorporating more hip hop on Butterfly a consequence of the rave reviews and the separation ? The way the sentence is written I assume it's that way, but it's a bit ambiguous for me

  Yes that assumption is correct per the cited source

• "in follow-up album Butterfly" the word "her" is missing

  Added

• "recently released Notorious B.I.G./Bone Thugs-n-Harmony collaboration 'Notorious Thugs'" is a cumbersome read in a pretty long sentence. suggest rewriting it to "'Notorious Thugs' by Notorious B.I.G. and Bone Thugs-n-Harmony"

  Reworded

• Include release date for "Honey"

  I think that would introduce timing confusion as it is not evident that "Breakdown" was recorded after the release of "Honey". The release of "Honey" is dicussed in the "release" section.

• nitpick, but isn't it usually "remix of" instead of "remix to" ? i recognise this may be just a matter of writing preference though, so it'sfine to gloss over this

  Changed

More to come soon ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 14:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments, Heartfox (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• More
  • Do some trims to the following words or phrases for concision
    • "both" from "both he and Combs" and "both Carey and her fans" (this word tends to be redundant from experience)

  Trimmed

  • • "also" from "She also recorded vocals..."

  Trimmed

• "became apparent" ... at first glance readers won't know what "apparent" is referring to; suggest specifying ("apparent in her discography")

  Clarified

• The timeline presented in the second paragraph is unclear. In relation to the recording sessions for Butterfly, when did Carey learn of "Notorious Thugs" ? sometime during recording? before it started? after it started?

  Clarified

• "after the composing the music" self-explanatory

  Removed "the music"

• "Upon their arrival" the "they" is ambiguous

  Removed; no longer necesary

• On a similar note: this part "where Dana Jon Chappelle and Ian Dalsemer conducted engineering at The Hit Factory and Daddy's House" causes the confusion to arise. I am not sure about the merits of its inclusion in the first part of the paragraph, considering the first sentences focus on Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony and how they began their contributions to the song. Suggest moving to after the sentence "Carey, Stevie J, and Combs produced..."

  Moved

• "The lyrics have a dark tone, and chirping birds in the background elicit an optimistic aura" i dont think "and" is the right conjunction to use here, considering there's a contrast between the lyrics and elements of the music

  I thought "yet" or "while" introduces NPOV issues so I chose "and"

• "all about the rhythmic and melodic flow that I was inspired by" I was confused by what this quotation meant for a second until I read the source and learned it was referring to Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony's musicality. the quotation beats around the bush a bit so paraphrase it to be more direct

  Paraphrased.

• More vague wording imo in "showcasing she is caught between despair and detachment" - perhaps it would be useful to specify this is about the relationship discussed in the song ("Jon Pareles wrote this highlighted how she simultaneously feels despair and apathy about her relationship"

  It is already mentioned that the song is about a relationship at the start of the third paragraph

To be continued ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This may just be me, but "a potential success in its own right" feels off and vague. I assume they meant "commented on its potential to be a commercially successful single" ?

  Reworded

• "After the song" ambiguous; switch this with "Breakdown" to avoid confusion with "butterfly"

  Switched

• "acted as the third single" -> "was the third single" (to tighten prose)

  Reworded

• "later that year" is 1998 I assume?

  Changed to " in late 1998"

• "heavy R&B material" should be "heavily" because "heavy" cannot describe a song in this context

  Reworded

• I cast doubt on the relevance of mentioning "The Roof" here. the article is about "Breakdown". as much as possible let's try not veering away from that

  Cut

• "Daily Herald writer Mark Guarino considered the lyrics unusually substantive" I looked at the cited source for this, and they don't quite match: it says "[the song] includes one of the more mature lyrics [...] heavy stuff from the queen of cute". "Substantive" doesn't really say a lot and does not properly convey the intended meaning of the source.

  Changed "unusually substantive" to "surprisingly serious"

• "Several critics thought the composition lacked cohesiveness" the transition to this part of the paragraph is a bit rough and it could use a transition word at the beginning. I get the need for concision, but cohesion is also needed in articles to avoid staccato prose

  prefaced with "in contrast"

• "made the song's quality equivalent to that of her traditional ballads" "equivalent" can either mean "just as bad" or "just as good" or "just as ok" or really anything. the quote "as magical" is pretty useful to use here

  Changed to "as high-quality"

• the archive link of the aforementioned Vulture source is for a Cleveland.com article

  Corrected

• "a pattern of nondescript R&B collaborations" what do you mean by "nondescript R&B collaborations" ? standard for its time? boilerplate?

  There's an explanatory note

• "duplicative" WP:PLAINENGLISH; just say "repetitive"

  Reworded

• Placing "Rather than simply having them appear on the track" before "Sal Cinquemani" gives the impression that Cinquemani had them on the track.can we find a way to move that phrase?

  Reworded

• "embraced her collaborators" rather their musical style?

  Reworded

• "Breakdown debuted and peaked at number four on the Hot R&B Singles chart" hot r&b songs is a separate chart from hot r&b/hip-hop songs, so don't cite the latter and instead use the former page

  Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs was titled Hot R&B Singles in 1998; the citation is correct

• "In one scene performing cabaret" trim to "in one cabaret scene"

  Reworded

• "gave homage" apologies again for this similar nitpick, but i believe this usually is written as "paid homage" ?

  Converted to "paid homage"

• "social standards regarding the attractiveness of female R&B singers are implied" implied because they're female singers? R&B singers? female r&b singers ?

  female R&B singers

So far, I found some WP:ELEVAR issues that I think stemmed from paraphrasing, which caused a large chunk of the ambiguity in the composition and review sections. You may also want to do another sweep of all the sources, as I spotted some inconsistencies in the citations (wrong archive links, and so on), though I won't bother with the spotchecks since Vami already did it. Will continue again soon ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this on the weekend. Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what inconsistencies in the citations you are referring to aside from the one archive link which I have now fixed?

Your Power, I've now responded to all above. Thanks again for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I was referring primarily to how the article faithfully describes the reviews from the song, although I see that it has been fixed now. I read everything else in the music video section and found zero issues prose-wise.

One last comment --- structurally "Having employed them on remixes..." is used here to describe "Breakdown", when it should be describing hip hop. I recommend moving it to the previous sentence: "...Carey's musical direction toward hip hop, which she previously employed on remixes to her songs...". That's pretty much it, and I think other than that the legacy section is fine. Once this is addressed I will be willing to support. My apologies for the long wait, and thank you for your patience! ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed the sentence wording to ""Breakdown" marked the first time she collaborated with rap artists on a song in its original form; she had previously employed them on remixes to her songs "Fantasy" (1995), "Always Be My Baby" (1996), and "Honey" (1997)". Heartfox (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Thank you so much for your prompt response here. With that, I am happy to provide my support. Best of luck to your future Mariah FACs :) ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 01:34, 21 March 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 25 March 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.