Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Robin (talk · contribs) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I'll review this.

Refs

• Various refs have italicization issues. Go through the article and fix them.
• ref #2 doesn't have the work parameter.
  •  Done  — AARON • ^TALK 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• In a Lotus album preview with VEVO --- remove. Isn't necessary
  •  Done  — AARON • ^TALK

• Aguilera reveleaed that she knew of Martin when she first debuted in the music industry, but wanted to collaborate with other producers before working with him. he singer continued to say that now she has come full circle in her career, and that she felt like it was the right time collaborate on material for her album. --- These sentences convey the same message; merge them with less detail.
  • No it doesn't.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • Would you mind if I re-wrote these two sentences? — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see what there is to re-write, it doesn't repeat itself.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its instrumentation consists of synths, "loud" drums and electronicas, and received comparisons to the songs recorded by Usher, "DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love" and "Scream", both of which were produced by Martin. --- Link instrumentation and change 'consists' to 'incorporates' and "loud" to abrasive. We don't know whether those particular attributes encompass its composition. In addition, remove the Usher comparisons as only one reviewer thinks this.
  • What? There's nothing wrong with those two words. "Loud" is a quote.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • Yes, a very redundant quote. Either remove 'loud' or change it abrasive. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The comparisons haven't been removed. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do you understand what I mean with, "We don't know whether those particular attributes encompass its composition."; We don't if the 'synths, "loud" drums and electronicas' are the track's only instrumentation. That's why I suggest you change the wording from 'consist' to 'incorporates'. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't really see the point but okay. But abrasive is the complete wrong word, that makes it sound negative.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Many of them praised Aguilera for not over singing and delivering a solid vocal performance, while others complimented the musical structure and composition. --- Change to: Many reviewers considered "Let There Be Love" a stand-out track on Lotus; plaudits centered on Aguilera's vocal performance and the track's musical structure.
  • I don't believe any critics called it a standout track though. Plaudits is the complete wrong word to use, I've never heard of it.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • 'best' and 'stand-out' are basically synonyms. Plaudit(s) is a synonym for praise, so its perfectly acceptable. Try this: "Many reviewers considered "Let There Be Love" one of the best songs on Lotus; praise centered on Aguilera's vocal performance and the track's musical structure." — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see an issue with this, it's just your opinion of how you would write it. There's actually nothing wrong with what I've written.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Upon the release of Lotus, the song debuted on the South Korea international singles chart at number 92 with digital download sales of 2,945. --- link South Korea's single chart and change 'with' with due.
  • We know the exact amount here, so "with" is the correct word choice. If we didn't know, then yes "due" would be correct.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • I still don't see why "due" isn't appropriate; it charted due to those numbers. Why does it matter whether we know the exact number. Actually, your contradicting yourself; see the charts section. :/ — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Upon the release of Lotus, the song debuted on theSouth Korea international singles chart at number 92 with digital download sales of 2,945 ----- Something went wrong here. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a space  — AARON • ^TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Aguilera performed the song for first time at the 40th American Music Awards on November 2012, as part of a medley with Lotus tracks "Lotus Intro" and "Army of Me". She also performed the song on The Voice with the team who she coaches. --- Aguilera performed on televised programs such as the 40th American Music Awards and The Voice. The current sentences are plagued with too much detail for a lead.
  • Second paragraph will be too short this way.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • So? Maybe you can add the composition sentences to the 2nd paragraph. Try this; "Aguilera performed the track on televised programs such as the 40th American Music Awards and The Voice." — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've had to make both shorter, otherwise it's unbalanced.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Background and recording

This section is tedious and jarring to read. I suggest removing 3/4 of the statements.

• How is it jarring? It's short and concise.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It repetitively revolves around her 'rebirth'. Condense.
    • It's already a condensed version of what it should to be. I only say rebirth once, and that's in a quote.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I meant the sentiment in general. It mainly revolves around Aguilera's sentiments and not on the song itself. I strongly urge you to condense the section. — Robin (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not passing the article if this remains the same. — Robin (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Development

However, she felt at this point in her career with Lotus, Aguilera felt it was the right time to work together, saying: --- change saying to 'stating' or 'reflecting'. Formal prose.

• There's nothing wrong with "saying", but I've changed it anyway.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Composition and lyrics

• Opening sentence; change combines to incorporates and dancepop to dance-pop. We don't know whether those particular genres encompass its composition.
  • They are both sourced, so yes they are a part of the composition. Combines is fine here because of the magnitude of genres. You would use incorporates for one, maybe two, other genres.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. — Robin (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • I didn't mean the dance genre. I meant changing the dance-pop genre. On combining okay. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• According to Kitty Empire for The Guardian, the song "about as formulaic as club pop gets" but "resonates effectively. ---- the song is "about as formulaic as club pop gets" but "resonates effectively."
  • Done  — AARON • ^TALK 10:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• He also noted that Aguilera was probably aware that the "Let There Be Love"'s melody bared strong resemblances to the songs, which most likely prompted her to spend "the last minute wailing all over the place."[15] Aguilera "roars" the lyrics "Let there be let there be love/ Here in the here in the dark" over trance beats and projects a "saucy" tone as she sings ""Hit the right spot, making my eyes roll back." ---- These sentences are redundant for a composition section as they belong in a critical reception section. Remove.
  • This is completely about composition. It's about musical structure and comparisons, her vocals, and the lyrics. Not critical reception at all.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • These are all opinions which do not bare any relevance to composition info. — Robin (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • How does musical structure, vocal and lyric info not bare any relevance to composition?!?! That's what composition is! What the song is composed of: the melody, lyrics, vocals etc.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I disagree. — Robin (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

• The entire section follows the same template of author-for-publication. To keep the prose fresh, I suggest using formats that I've used at Gotta Be You (One Direction song)#Critical reception.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• AllMusic is written with a capital m and should not be in italics.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• but does not show much personality. --- Change to: "but is devoid of personality".
  • He's not saying completely, he's saying not much. There's a difference.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Mesfin Fekadu for The Huffington Post thought that Martin's production of "Let There Be Love" was superior to "Your Body", citing it as "typical" but potentially successful on radio. ------ link Your Body
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Jim Farber for New York Daily News praised the song, writing that it "functions as a prime disco diva anthem" ---- Change to New York Daily News contributor Jim Farber hailed it "as a prime disco diva anthem".
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Has not been done. — Robin (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Christina Garibaldi for MTV News praised the wrote the uptempo track, writing that its "heavy beat" and "sultry lyrics" were perfect for people to dance to in nightclubs. ------- This sentence needs some major restructuring.
  • Why?  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Read the entire sentence intently and you'll understand. — Robin (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Jenna Hally Rubenstein for MTV Buzzworthy wrote that it is easy to become addicted to listening to "Let There Be Love", and that Aguilera's vocals "prevail above the noise. ----- Jenna Hally Rubenstein for MTV Buzzworthy opined that it is easy to become addicted to listening to "Let There Be Love", and that Aguilera's vocals "prevail above the noise.
  • There's not much difference.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You use the word about 25 times in the section; some variety would be nice. — Robin (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• I read Lansky's review; He does not complimented Aguilera for not over singing and he does not describe that as "epic." Restructure sentence.
  • Read it again. He does.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I did. He praises her vocal performance and then adds that she isn't over singing; there's a difference.
      • Has not been done. — Robin (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Wass echoed what Lanksy had written, concurring that the song could become a commercial success and that it ought to be a single.[12] He also praised her vocal performance, writing that the production serves as the "perfect destination" for her "powerhouse pipes." ---- Wass shared Lanksy's sentiments and elaborated that the production serves as the "perfect destination" for her "powerhouse pipes."
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Link Pop Crush, fix the italics, and correct its ref while you're there. Its publisher is Townsquare Media.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Michael Gallucci for Popcrush thought that the song was not quite as good as "Your Body" and described the collaboration between Aguilera and Martin as "typical pop." ---- Michael Gallucci for Pop Crush thought that the song was not quite as good as "Your Body" and denounced it as "typical pop."
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• However, he criticized Aguilera vocal performance stating that her "big voice was designed to soar over monster beats like this." ---- This doesn't make sense.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Robert Copsey for Digital Spy thought that the song's weakness is also its strength ----- what weakness?
  • Read the quote.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• He also wrote that it was his favourite song on the album upon the initial listen, but that it would probably fall down his list after several months of play. ----- Remove entirely. Meh.
  • No.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The sentence is redundant as it doesn't convey any constructive critique.
      • Done. 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Annie Zaleski for The A.V. Club was critical of the song, writing that it is "faceless Top 40 EDM." --- Annie Zaleski for The A.V. Club critized the song as "faceless Top 40 EDM."
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Usher image needs to go. Not enough weight. — Robin (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Live performance

• Change section title to 'Live performances'
• Aguilera also performed "Let There Be Love" with her team of aspiring singer's on The Voice, a singing competition on which she is a coach. ---- Change 'singer's' to singers.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Charts

• The Gaon Chart's url does not specify the information given the article. Fix this.
  • They don't, that's why. Follow the instructions in the ref.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Status

On hold. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've added notes on queries that I'm adamant about. You have until 13 April. — Robin (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  Fail it then, because you are wrong on several things. How you can say that musical structure, vocal and lyrical information does not belong in the composition section and that the picture of Usher should not be included is to be honest, stupid. A mere mention of a person is reason to include a picture. This song was heavily compared to two of his songs. I'm adamant on not changing these because you are wrong. Fail the article, but then you may be approached by a senior editor for failing without good reason.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Failing. — Robin (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.