"/POV|POV]] (discussions related to problems with the article's lack of a neutral point of view). 
 **Images (discussions regarding the number, size, position and copyright status of the images in the article). 
 **Miscellaneous (other discussions related to the content of the article). 
 *July 5–August 4, 2005: Archive01. 
 *July 20–September 22, 2005: Archive02. 

  
 This article was the subject of an Article Improvement Drive from October 24 to October 31, 2005. See the difference here, the version of the article at the beginning of the Drive here, and the version immediately following the Drive here. 

 __TOC__ 

 == ""Can't see the forest for the trees"" == 

 ...a very good way to describe this article. Is it at all possible to trim this down so that someone who doesn't know the first thing about Mariah Carey, and would like to learn, isn't scared away by the extreme (over) detail present here? Do we really need to know what reviewers thought of her walk-on part in State Property 2? The plethora of external links doesn't help, either. At 62 (!) kilobytes, the article is twice as long as the reccomended legnth for a Wikipedia article. A little bit over is understandable, this is, like, too much, man.   

 :Why did you add a clean up tag to the article?  Even if you think it needs to be shorter, it definitely does not require ""clean up"".    

 ::The article needs to be shortened, and the several dozen (mostly pointless) external links need to be leaned up. The qualities of the images used need to be improved. And there are still plenty of POV issues.   

 ::I concur with Freddy. This article is a mess for all the reasons he's mentioned  AND there's redundant information. Please refer to Wikipedia's Featured Articles in Music for examples of the ideal we're shooting for here.   

 :I hadn't read the whole article through in a while, so I give it a try in light of this criticism.  It does indeed read kind of slow, but that's due to the reviews and the external links that were added to satisfy previous POV critics, and that far exceeed the referencing given to almost any other popular music topic.  If Freddy still thinks there are POV issues, he needs to supply some specifics.  The Acting section does seem excessively long and detailed; maybe it could be moved to a separate article, with brief discussion of Glitter and Wisegirls (the only two roles of significance) inserted into the main sections.  Another thing that causes drag is the discussion of Mariah's work for others – Lorenz, Penny Ford, 7 Mile, Blaque, etc.  Did any of these become hits?  They don't seem to be of much significance compared to her own work.  The duplicate album discography also seems pointless, given that it exists in a separate article.  But in general I  think the article is what it is and does not deserve a cleanup tag.  And if Freddy is bothered by the level of detail here, he'll change his mind once he reads the articles on her singles!      

 ::Freddy's already read the articles on her singles, and has nominated several non-neccessary articles for deletion (resulting in the editors here ganging up to have them kept). As far as specific examples, the level of detail in and of itself is not-NPOV. All of these articles could very easily be cut down, and become not only more impactful, but far better. There is POV language used i nthe prose throughout; I will pick some examples out when I have time later. More is not always better, and especially not in this case. Common sense facts do not need ot be referenced; no page on one person should have dozens of reference links like this. It would be recommended that, if you want to cover Mariah Carey in this level of detail, a MAriah Carey wiki should be started at WikiCities or someplace. As far as her coverage (and the coverage of a few others) here is concerned, this is excessive. I know peple don't like the term ""fancruft"", but it definitely applies here. -