Talk:Love Interruption

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Interruption/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 06:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Link "lead single" to lead single
  •  Done
• Please re-write the release sentence to: "It was digitally released as the lead single from his debut solo studio album, Blunderbuss (2012), on January 31, 2012 and as a 7-inch vinyl single on February 7 by [LABELS].
  •  Done. "Digitally released" sounds awkward; I've found a different way to present the information regarding which label released it. Let me know if there are any issues.
• a blues ballad → an Americana and blue ballad
  •  Done. I wrote it in a way that I think sounds better but that still incorporates that it's an Americana song.
• explore love using violent imagery → I would replace "imagery" with another word, as this may get readers confused
  • I'm not sure I agree with this. Imagery has a very precise definition, and I don't think there's another word that would get the same meaning across.
• It features vocals from White and Ruby Amanfu as well as the bass clarinet, the Wurlitzer electric piano, and the acoustic guitar → Featuring vocals from White and Ruby Amanfu, its instrumentation encompasses a bass clarinet, a Wurlitzer electric piano, and an acoustic guitar
  • I'm not sure about this either. The first part of this sentence would be a misplaced modifier, as it's the song that features vocals from White and Amanfu, not "its instrumentation". That being said, I've rewritten the sentence so that it's less awkward to read through.
• Link "critics" to Music criticism
  •  Done
• who contrasted the song with musical elements prominent in White's earlier musical projects, especially the White Stripes → who likened elements to his work with the White Stripes
  • I'm not too sure about this change. "Likened" is the exact opposite of what I'm going for here, and it's more precise to state that critics compared it with his other music projects.
• It was the first single White released after the White Stripes dissolved → "Love Interruption" was the first single White released... (to not only use "it" and "the song")
  •  Done
• and it reached multiple countries' alternative and rock charts as well as several countries' singles charts → we don't need to have this info that exact in the lead; you can simplify to: "and it reached record charts in multiple countries."
  •  Done
• Please shorty describe what the music video is about
  •  Done
• He has performed "Love Interruption" → To flow better, write: "For further promotion, the singer performed "Love Interruption"..."
  • I'm not too sure about this change; the purpose of this sentence is to encompass general live performances of the song (e.g. at concerts) as well as specific performances on Saturday Night Live and the Grammys. The last two can certainly be characterized as promotional performances, although general performances at concerts aren't necessarily intended to promote the song. I have replaced "he" with "the singer", though, as it does flow better that way.
• "Love Interruption" is featured → For better flow, add "also" before "featured"
  • I think "also" would be redundant here, since the article already says "in addition to".

@Cartoon network freak: I've covered most of the changes in this section. There are some that I disagreed with, and I've explained why. Let me know if you still think I should make those changes; we can always ask for a second opinion if necessary. Also, thanks for combining the "Music video" and "Live performances and other appearances" sections into a single section. I think that was a good change that improves the flow of the article. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: I've done a few tweaks by myself, and I think the section is ready now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• Please add ALT to the image
  •  Done
• Is this the cover artwork for the digital release, 7-inch single or both? You should explain this with a caption
  •  Done
• Shorten "Jack White" to only "White" in the songwriters and producers parameter, as we already know his full name
  •  Done

Production and release

• The latter version was ultimately used in the final version of the song → The latter one was ultimately used as the track's final version
  • I've changed this to "The latter was ultimately used in the final version of the track." I think it's inaccurate to say that was used as the final version of the track, since more instrumentation was added after this recording.
• Link "clarinet" and "bass clarinet"
  •  Done
• Link his studio album
  •  Done
• with the release of its first single → with the release of its lead single
  •  Done
• "Love Interruption", and a free stream of the song was made available on his website → "Love Interruption"; a free stream of the song was offered on his website"
  •  Done
• The song was released → Change to "track" to avoid repetition of words
• on January 31 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time → on January 31 at 12:00 a.m. (EST)
  •  Done
• Link "B-side"
  •  Done
• Was the B-side single present on both the digital download and the 7-inch single? If yes, please specify
  •  Done
• February 25 at 12:01 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time → February 25 at 12:01 a.m. (GMT)
  •  Done
• You say the song was released in Europe on February 25, but what was with the other release? Please specify
  •  Done
• The song was released through → All aforementioned released were conducted by... (They were all by the same labels, right?)
  • This is not the case; I will clarify this in the "Release history" section once I create it.

Composition and lyrics

• Link "blues"
  •  Done. I linked blues ballad instead.
• assist in driving the song → what exactly do you mean here?
  •  Done. I've clarified what I mean here.
• get[...] in the way of itself → get [...] in the way of itself
  • The ellipses is meant to indicate the removal of the "s" from "gets", not an entire word or set of words. If that's still an issue, I'll go ahead and make the change.
• elaborating, "We want → elaborating: "We want
  •  Done
• detailing various such actions: → I think it would sound better if you said: "detailing various actions such as:"
  • I've removed the phrase altogether, as I think the quoted line speaks for itself.
• Wow, these are really heavy lyrics
  • Haha yeah. I didn't realize how intense they were until I actually read them.
• Link "masochistic"
  •  Done
• Quote > Jack White, regarding the use of the word "love" → It is already clear from the quote that he's taking about "love", so I would rather say: "Jack White on Interview"
  •  Done

Reception

• Link "critics" to Music criticism
  •  Done
• Link "Rolling Stone"
  • It's linked in the "Composition and lyrics" section.
• 3 1/2 → do you mean 3.5? (if yes, then please use this)
  •  Done
• describing the song as a → replace "the song" with "it" to avoid repeating words
  •  Done
• He spoke favorably of Ruby Amanfu's performance → I would rather say "contribution" here
  • I replaced it with "vocals" instead.
• Billboard described the song → replace "the song" with "Love Interruption"
  •  Done
• and concluded that "'Love Interruption' leaves you lusting → and concluded that it "leaves you lusting...
  •  Done
• the last few White Stripes albums → Link this to the discography of the band
  • I'm a bit uncertain about this. MOS:LWQ says to be careful about linking within quotations, and since going from "the last few White Stripes albums" to The White Stripes discography is a bit of a leap, I think we should avoid linking to it here.
• Dolan stated → Rolling Stone's Dolan (for context)
  • I think this would be redundant, as it's already made clear that he wrote for the Rolling Stone earlier in the section.

Promotion and other usage

• which White directed → I would add "himself" after "directed"
  • I'm concerned that this might violate WP:EDITORIALIZING, because we would essentially be implying that the fact that White himself directed it deserves extra emphasis; let me know if you disagree.
• it has received → This sounds a bit akward to me, as nobody 'gave' them those views; I would replace with "gathered" or "amassed", but that's your choice
  • I've removed the word "received" altogether; does that work?
• White performed "Love Interruption" → For a better flow, I would add: "For further promotion, ..."
  • I don't know about saying "For further promotion," since the sources don't explicitly say that he was performing the song to promote the song specifically; however, I added an introductory sentence to the paragraph so that the transition from "music video" to "live performances" is less abrupt.
• with Ruby Amanfu and his all-female → Just "Amanfu", as the article had already introduced her name to the reader
  •  Done
• White dedicated a performance of the song → You have already used the "performed the song" construction twice before; could you rewrite this?
  • I can't really think of another way to word it. Does GA criteria require avoiding repetition?
• at which Q-Tip also performed → at which Q-Tip was also involved/featured...
  •  Done - I changed it to "that also featured Q-Tip".
• In March 2018, he included the song → Replace "the song" with "Love Interruption" to avoid repeating yourself
  •  Done
• In March 2018, he included the song in the setlist for his first live performance since 2016 → Where and when did this performance take place?
  • I think March 2018 covers the "when" (perhaps the day would make the sentence better—let me know if you think that's the case). As for "where", I've added information about that.
• The song was covered → Add "further" before "covered" for flow
  •  Done - I added "later" instead, as I think it sounds better in this case.
• Jack White had previously produced → only his last name
  • I looked at the sentence again, and I've removed it altogether, as I don't think it's relevant to the article.

Track listing

• Digital download and 7-inch single[8][1] → references are not in chronological order
  • They don't need to be—see WP:GANOT#(2)_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable, which says that it's not necessary for footnotes to be "listed in numeric order, if multiple citations are named after a sentence."

Release history

• This article needs such a section; take this one as an example
  • @Cartoon network freak:I'm having problems making this section, since the sources aren't entirely clear on which label released which version of the single. (As much as I would like to assume that XL Recordings handled all European releases and Columbia handled all releases in all other countries, I can't find a source that says that explicitly.) I don't think that this section is necessary for the article to be a GA (see Irreplaceable, for example, which is a Featured article without a "Release history" section). Would it be sufficient to attribute the record labels to digital releases where appropriate?

Other stuff

References

• As far as I checked them, the references do cover the assertations made in this article
• There is something wrong with Ref#1
  •  Done
• Ref#7: Is this White's official website? Please remove "www.jackwhiteiii.com" and write "publisher=Jack White's Official Website"
  • It is an official website; the site's front page refers to it as jackwhiteiii.com, so I've changed it to that. I'm not sure if it's necessary to clarify that it's his official website, as a quick analysis of the website makes that fairly clear.
• The same goes for Ref#22 and Ref#26

Copy-violation

• 50% is quite high, but since you used a big quote from the Interview website, this should be fine.
• No dead links. Good job!

Outcome

•  On hold — There are some issues with this article, and I'm not sure if these are all my comments, but either way we could have this done and promoted in 7 days. Regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: I've further done some tweaks on the article, and I now believe it is ready for promotion. I understand your suggestion to omit the 'Release history' section, and there's no big grammar mistake left. Congratulations, because I'm now passing this to GA!! Just in case you have time, I have some GANs waiting for a long time for a review in the "Other music articles" section. Just unsee this if you don't have time. Congrats again! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2018 (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.