Jump to content

Talk:Blunderbuss (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBlunderbuss (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2020Good article nomineeListed

untitled

[edit]

Add to Backing Vocals – on Blunderbuss (Jack White page): Ruby Amanfu:

Missing Pieces Love Interruption Blunderbuss I'm Shakin' On And On And On Take Me With You When You Go

(Source: http://www.discogs.com/Jack-White-Blunderbuss/release/4602081) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.185.51 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name?

[edit]

I can't find any info about why the album is called Blunderbuss, nor is there a link from this article to either of the definitions of the term, for interested readers. Rather than mistakenly wikilink it, anyone know for sure the genesis of the name?Timtempleton (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed out of context Rolling Stone article regarding White's attitude toward women

[edit]

I removed the following from the section "Debate surrounding White's views toward women": 'However, in another album review, Rob Sheffield with Rolling Stone said, in reference to White's all-female band, that his "favorite trick is turning women into rock goddesses: Meg White, Alison Mosshart, Alicia Keys, even Loretta Lynn. White knows how to make women feel like stars."(Reference: Sheffield, Rob (April 24, 2012). "Blunderbuss", Rolling Stone. Retrieved October 15, 2014.)' It appears that Sheffield wasn't trying to give an opinion on White's attitude toward women; rather, he was using this statement as a precursor to the following remark: "But on Blunderbuss, the star is him, with a mostly female gang of musicians." I think it's somewhat misleading to include this as part of a section about the debate on White's attitude toward women since Sheffield's intention was not to comment on this matter, so I removed it. Let me know if you disagree. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making some release date-related changes - input request

[edit]

I'm making a few changes regarding release dates and building a "Release history" section. That being said, I've run into some issues that make me feel like I should make a post here about the changes I'll be making, since none of them are exactly ideal. Here are the changes I'll be making, as well as explanations of the problems I've run into:

  • I'm changing the infobox's "Release date" to April 20, and I'm adding information to the lead stating that the album was released digitally on April 20. The reason for this is that some iTunes pages, including this page and this page, list April 20 as the album's release date, which seems to suggest that the album was available for purchase on iTunes starting on this date. This would make sense, considering the fact that Third Man Records started streaming the album on iTunes on April 16. Speaking of which, the reason I believe April 20 should be put as the digital release date rather than April 16 is that the album wasn't technically available for purchase yet; I view it as more of a free preview than a release.
  • According to an announcement on Jack White's website months before the album's release, the album was to be released on April 23 through XL Recordings and on April 24 through Columbia Records. So, for the "Release history" section, I think the best course of action is to do the following: 1) for digital releases, use the iTunes page for each country in which the album was released, and 2) for the vinyl and CD releases, just put April 23 for each country where the album was released through XL Recordings, and April 24 for each country where the album was released through Columbia Records. That being said, some Amazon pages like this one give a bunch of different dates for the vinyl and CD releases. I plan on disregarding that page and taking the aforementioned course of action because 1) this page and others have conflicting information, 2) there's nothing else I can find anywhere suggesting that the vinyl and CD versions of the album were released prior to April 23 anywhere in the world, and 3) jackwhiteiii.com's announcement distinguishes release dates based on the record label rather than country, so I have no reason to believe that the release dates would differ among countries where the album was released under the same label.

If you disagree (or agree) with any of these changes, please let me know. For now, I'm going to go ahead and work on making these changes, but since I don't think any of them are ideal, it would be useful to have some input from other users. I'm also going to make a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums asking for input on these matters. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing some info from "Release History" section

[edit]

I'm removing the following information from the "Release History" section:

  • "The photographs on the record album were taken outside the Nashville Electric Service South Substation in Nashville, Tennessee." The source (from feelsnumb.com) is self-published, and I see no indication of any editorial staff; therefore, it violates WP:SPS. I couldn't find a reliable source for the statement. I would assume that we can't use the picture itself as a source for the location since that seems like original research, but if I'm wrong on that, let me know.
  • "The album leaked on April 15, nine days ahead of its official release." The source (from hasitleaked.com) contradicts the info given in the article (at least, the mobile version does; to be honest, I'm avoiding opening up the website on my laptop because it feels shady).
  • "Promotional copies of the album, distributed to reviewers and radio stations, were sent as vinyl records to prevent leaks." I couldn't find a source for this, but perhaps I'm not Googling the right terms. For now I'm removing it, but if anyone has a reliable source for it (or for the statements mentioned above), let me know. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to the liner notes?

[edit]

I posted the following to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums (section titled "Anyone have access to the album Blunderbuss's liner notes?"). I'm going to post it here as well:

"This is a long shot, but I was wondering if anyone had access to the liner notes of Jack White's album Blunderbuss, because I'm having issues finding a reliable source for the Personnel listing. As far as I can tell by the article's history, there's a good chance the Personnel listing was adopted from Discogs, which is crowdsourced. The best source for credits that I can find is this page from AllMusic, but it doesn't contain the level of detail given in the article (i.e. the tracks each person contributed to). If anyone with access to the liner notes could check the Personnel listing in the article for accuracy, then the liner notes can be used as a source, and that would resolve the issue. It would also be helpful to check for missing people; I noticed that Bob Ludwig and Vance Powell aren't listed in the Personnel section despite working on engineering and mastering, and I would assume that they're credited in the liner notes. Thanks." Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Blunderbuss (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Article looks fine on first glance, will review soon though --K. Peake 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Recording date is inaccurate since the body backs up most of the songs being recorded in 2011, not all of the album
 Done -- I've removed the recording date from the lead and the infobox due to this ambiguity. (I've also added the Third Man Studio location.)
  • Studio location should be in brackets from its name in the infobox
 Done
Per my belief that the April 20 release date is unreliable (see my comments in #Release history), how about I replace the entire

sentence with this: "It was released in digital and physical formats beginning April 23, 2012, through White's own Third Man Records label, in association with XL Recordings and Columbia Records."

That is fine, though remove "White's own" intro and just write "through Third Man Records," followed by the remainder of the sentence --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and produced by White" → "and produced by him"
 Done
  • "in 2011." → "during 2011."
Removed entirely due to ambiguity of recording date.
  • "appear throughout the album," → "appear throughout it,"
Changed to "throughout" as I think this sounds less awkward than "throughout it" while fixing the issue of repetition.
See MOS:NOPIPE.
  • "The album received positive reviews from critics," → "Blunderbuss received widespread acclaim from music critics," with the target
 Done
  • Replace Metacritic score mention with what was praised
 Done
  • "and debuted in the top ten" → "and reached the top 10" per MOS:NUM
MOS:NUMERAL specifies that there's some leverage here; I changed it to "reached the top 10 in ten other countries" per MOS:NUMNOTES bullet on comparable values.
Given the removal of IMPALA due to a lack of reliable sources supporting it, I believe the other certifications hold more significance in justifying notability in the lead. I could replace it with "It was certified platinum by Music Canada and gold by record industry trade groups internationally" if that would be better. (Or I could remove it if you disagree with this point altogether.) Also, it looks like MC is not a commonly used initialism for Music Canada (it doesn't appear at all in the Music Canada article.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is confusing, as I have frequently seen it abbreviated as MC in song and album articles. You could do the replacement, though mention that certification was "in Canada" to be specific. --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blunderbuss was nominated for" → "The album was nominated for the awards of"
Partially done -- I think the "for the awards of" phrasing would reduce conciseness while introducing needless repetition.
 Done
  • "was nominated for" → "received a nomination for"
 Done
  • "The first single from the album," → "The lead single from Blunderbuss," with the wikilink
 Done
  • "through White's website." → "via White's website."
 Done
  • "on March 13, and on March 20," → "on March 13, 2012, and seven days later,"
 Done
I used "via" instead of "on a", but otherwise  Done.
 Done
  • "On April 1," → "On April 1, 2012,"
See below.
 Done
  • "A video for the album's final single," → "A music video for the fourth and final single," with the wikilink
 Done
  • "on October 10, and on October 30 the single" → "on October 10, 2012 and 20 days later, the single"
Mostly done -- I used "twenty" instead of 20 (see MOS:NUMERAL which provides leverage here) and did not repeat the year (see below).
  • "and on 7-inch vinyl" → "and on a 7-inch vinyl"
I think this sounds a bit awkward, but the original phrasing is also somewhat awkward. Does changing "on 7-inch vinyl" to "via 7-inch vinyl" work better?
Yes that is a lot better --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to the remaining changes for the lead section later. For now I'll move on to Background and Recording. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come back and made most of the remaining changes. My main disagreement is that I don't see the advantage of repeatedly specifying that release dates are in 2012, as I believe this is clear from context. I'm also not willing to die on this hill and will add the years if you disagree with me here. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

[edit]
  • "Jack White was a member of the band" → "White was a member of the duo" on the img main text
Given that the image caption mentions both Jack White and Meg White, I think using Jack White is better here.
Change to "Jack was a member" because you use the surname in the same sentence in brackets --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jack White had been a member" → "Jack had been a member" per MOS:SAMESURNAME
Given that this is the first mention of Jack White this section, I think it's better to use "Jack White" here to avoid ambiguity. (I would use Jack after subsequent usages, but the discussion of the White Stripes is short enough that there's no point where it's necessary to use Jack.)
Per MOS:SAMESURNAME, "Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car." You should say "Jack" because you refer to her as Meg White here. --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- I'm not entirely convinced that MOS:SAMESURNAME requires this as this specific sentence construction isn't covered, but it's clear who the sentence refers to either way, so I'll defer to your judgment. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jack and Meg White divorced in 2000, before the height of their career (and long before their breakup).
Well, give a different introduction that is appropriate --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- introducing her as "drummer Meg White". Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band went on a tour after releasing the album" → "the duo went on a tour after releasing their sixth studio album"
 Done
  • "the band canceled its United States tour dates, citing Meg White's" → "they canceled its tour dates in the United States, citing White's" since you have mentioned her by surname MOST recently
I think using "White's" here creates some ambiguity, and that using "Meg's" is better as it is unambiguous.
  • "the band canceled the remainder of its" → "the White Stripes cancelled the remainder of the"
 Done
  • "The band then went" → "The duo then went"
 Done
  • "ended in the band's breakup" → "ended with them breaking up"
This is grammatically incorrect as pronouns preceding gerunds are supposed to be possessive (although this often sounds awkward); I changed it to "ended with their breakup" to avoid repetition.
  • "released its second album," → "released their second studio album"
 Done
  • "Rock" should start the following sentence instead of "The"
 Done
  • "released its debut album" → "released their debut studio album"
 Done
  • Introduce the other album as "its successor"
 Done
 Done
  • "and held a" → "and subsequently held a"
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • "under his previous" → "under any of his previous"
 Done
  • "some of his material." → "some of his songs."
 Done
  • "but he found that after" → "though found that after"
 Done
  • Quote box should have speech marks around the quote
The Template:Quote box pages seems to suggest otherwise; see "Examples".
  • in regards to issuing a solo album → in regards to issuing Blunderbuss
 Done
  • "several advantages: in the latter case" → "several advantages; in the latter case"
 Done
  • "enabled him to" → "enabled White to use"
 Done
  • "individual songs using each band" → "individual songs, using each band"
Not sure I agree with this change, as "to 'see if anything changed'" is meant to modify "recorded different versions" rather than "using each band". I think the fundamental issue is that the wording is a bit odd, so I'll see if I can improve it later.
  • "for the album generated" → "for Blunderbuss generated"
 Done
  • "Most of the album's songs were" → "Most of the songs on it were"
 Done
  • "decided to release the album through" → "decided to release Blunderbuss through"
 Done
  • "and its capacity to" → "and the label's capacity to"
 Done
  • "release the album solely through his label, Third Man Records." → "release it solely through Third Man Records."
Disagree with this; "his label" adds context to why he was questioned about it in the first place, and this is the first time that body mentions Third Man Records being his record label.
Yeah that is true, sorry about my mishap here --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done; I checked again and I was wrong.
  • "he stated that he had" → "stated that he had"
Without the comma removed, this would be grammatically incorrect; I've changed it to "stated that he had" to avoid repetition and removed the comma for grammatical correctness, and I believe the sentence still flows well.
 Done
  • "finding that the album" → "finding that Blunderbuss"
 Done
  • "preferred analog to digital," → "preferred analog to digital recordings,"
 Done
  • "allowing him to" → "leading him to"
 Done

I've made most of the changes listed here; in some cases I think there may be better ways to deal with some of these issues than inserting/replacing words, so I'll come back to those later. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the remaining changes requested here. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]

Music

[edit]
  • "Blunderbuss is a" → "Musically, Blunderbuss is a"
Is this necessary? I feel like it flows awkwardly, and the reader would already know by the section title that we're talking about the musical composition anyway.
Commonly, the term "musically" is used to start mentions of genre(s) for songs/albums --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other music-related articles may do it, but that doesn't mean it's required by the GA criteria. For what it's worth, I dug through some album Featured Articles and wasn't able to find one that began comparable Composition-focused sections with the word "Musically". I believe adding "musically" here may also violates the "concise" part of GA criteria 1a. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19] should be before [20] after the comma
 Done
 Done
 Done
Contemporary R&B originated in the 1970s, according to its Wikipedia article; the original version of Little Willie John's "I'm Shakin'" was released in 1960, so with that context I believe R&B is a more appropriate link here.
No, as the page even says "commonly referred to as simply R&B" and Rhythm and blues is the parent genre --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhythm and blues is also abbreviated as R&B according to its page. Given that it's the parent genre of contemporary R&B and that the song in question was written over a decade before contemporary R&B existed as a genre, the current target is more appropriate. (I would change this if the source referred to the song as "contemporary R&B", but I don't think it's safe for us to assume that that was the source's assumption, given the year the song was written.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jazz breeziness"" → "jazz breeziness"," with the wikilink
 Done
  • "title track "Blunderbuss" and" → "title track "Blunderbuss",[21] and" since the country soul source should be moved there
Mostly done, with the exception of the addition of the comma as this would be grammatically incorrect.
That is fine, but move [21] to directly behind [24] then because having a ref after no grammar symbol seems very awkward --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add release year of Aladdin Sane in brackets
 Done
  • "found the album's" → "found Blunderbuss'"
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • Add release year of The Beatles in brackets
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • ""Freedom at uses a" → ""Freedom at 21" uses a"
 Done
  • [10] should be at the end of the sentence before [28]
 Done
Not necessary--see MOS:REDIRECT
 Done
 Done
  • [3] and [30] should both be solely at the end of the sentence in the correct order
 Done
  • "as well as the bass clarinet," → "alongside the bass clarinet," with the wikilink
 Done
  • Target mid-tempo to Tempo
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • "guitar solo–consisting of" → "guitar solo, consisting of"
  • "in different channels[22]—" → "in different channels,[22]"
I think the dash structure works better here, as it makes it clearer that the word "that" after the dashes modifies "guitar solo", but I'd be happy to change that/rework the sentence if the use of dashes here is an issue.
  • "on the album." → "on Blunderbuss."
 Done
  • "similarities and differences among" → "similarities and differences between"
 Done
 Done
  • "in the song "Sixteen Saltines"." → "on "Sixteen Saltines"."
 Done
  • Add release year of "Blue Orchid" in brackets
 Done
  • "the [White Stripes]."" → "the [White Stripes]"."
 Done
  • "music on Wanda Jackson's The Party Ain't Over," → "music on The Party Ain't Over,"
Is this change necessary? I think it's useful to reintroduce the album since it's only mentioned once in the preceding section, but I'd be happy to change it if you disagree.
The preceding section is still part of the article, so do not reintroduce --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described the album as being" → "described Blunderbuss as being"
 Done

Lyrics and themes

[edit]
  • Quote needs speech marks around it and where is it backed up by [15]?
See comments regarding Template:Quote box above. It's a multi-page interview; would it be better if I cited page numbers from the Uncut interview throughout the article?
Yes, probably cite appropriate page numbers --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack White, regarding → White, regarding
 Done
  • "shoulder on the cover of the album" → "shoulder on the album cover"
 Done
  • "weak-willed" men[3] and focusing" → "weak-willed" men,[3] as well as focusing"
I think adding another comma to that sentence would make it awkward. I've moved the citation to the end of the sentence instead.
 Done
  • "relationships using lyrics" → "relationships by using lyrics"
I think this sounds awkward? I think changing "using" to "by using" makes it sound a bit like he's occasionally characterizing relationships, when the intended reading is that he occasionally uses hysterical lyrics.
Maybe change to "with usage of lyrics" then? --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "with 'lyrics...'" instead. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening track "Missing Pieces" depicts" → "The opening track, "Missing Pieces", depicts"
 Done
  • "what NME's Barry Nicolson" → "what NME's Barry Nicolson"
 Done
  • "The narrator of the song "Love Interruption" expresses" → "The narrative of "Love Interruption" sees White and Amanfu expressing"
I think this is a bit awkward; how about "In "Love Interruption", White and Amanfu express..."?
Yes, that is decent --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dombal ultimately viewed the song" → "Dombal viewed the song"
 Done
  • "The song "Sixteen Saltines" depicts an" → ""Sixteen Saltines" depicts an"
 Done
  • "narrator who struggles with" → "narrator that struggles with"
I think "who" is better here, as we're talking about a person.
  • [27][25] should be put in numerical order
Not necessary; there's no Wikipedia policy or guideline stipulating that sources must be in chronological order when they appear together, and in this case placing the sources in numerical order creates a text-source integrity problem, as the current citation order reflects the order that information from those sources appear in the sentence.
Are you sure about that? From what I recall, I have been told to always put them in numerical order. --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100% sure -- see WP:GANOT#(2)_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20] and [24] should be solely at the end of the sentence in the correct order
I've moved them to the end of the sentence, but not in numerical order, per above.
  • "between Jack White and his former bandmate Meg White" → "between Jack and his former bandmate Meg White" per MOS:SAMESURNAME
From MOS:SAMESURNAME: "...the body of an article should not unless confusion could result." I think suddenly referring to Jack White as "Jack" because Meg White came up makes for an abrupt transition, and could leave the reader confused for a few seconds about whether the article is referring to someone with the last name of Jack, whereas temporarily shifting to "Jack White" is easy to follow. In any case, GA criteria don't require compliance with MOS:BIO.
Yeah with a large article like this, I agree in the context --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referenced the White Stripes' breakup," → "references the White Stripes' breakup,"
 Done
  • "White responded that the song" → "Jack White responded by explaining the song"
I'd rather avoid the use of the word "explain" per WP:SAID; I think "responded that" works here.
  • "and authenticity" and that" → "and authenticity", and that"
 Done

Moving on to Promotion. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

[edit]
  • Retitle to Release and promotion
How about "Promotion and release"? I've seen this more in articles, and I think it sounds better (as the promotion started before the release).
Yes, you can do that --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the release history section's para of prose to here, also follow that up by writing out how the album was released initially in various countries on April 20, 2012 and mention the later release three days later since everything in the lead has got to be written out
Done, with the exception of the April 20 release date (see below)
  • "and release dates of April 23[38] and April 24." → "with release dates of April 23[38] and April 24, 2012."
 Done
  • "The same day, a free stream of" → "That same day, a free stream of" with the target
 Done
  • "on January 31 at" → "on January 31, 2012 at"
  • Target Eastern Standard Time to Eastern Time Zone
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • "peaked at 13 and 27 on the Billboard US Alternative Songs and US Rock Songs charts," → "peaked at number 13 and 27 on the US Billboard Alternative Songs and Rock Songs charts," with the targets
 Done
  • "On February 8," → "On February 8, 2012,"
  • "On March 8," → "Five days later,"
 Done
  • "third birthday at" → "third anniversary at" since it is a label, not a person
 Done
  • "in Nashville, Tennessee." → "in Nashville."
 Done
  • "on March 13." → "on March 13, 2012."
 Done
 Done
  • "released March 20." → "released on March 20 of that year."
  • Target 12" vinyl to Twelve-inch single
 Done
  • "whose B-side contained a playable etching of the record label's logo." → "that contained a playable etching of the record label's logo on the B-side."
 Done
  • [50] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [51]
 Done
  • "The single peaked at 129 on the UK Singles Chart" → "The song peaked at number 129 on the UK Singles Chart," with the wikilink
Not adding the comma as it would be grammatically incorrect/awkward; I could move the source to the end of the sentence if that's better.
Put the sources in numerical order --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 on the Billboard US Alternative Songs" → "number 12 on the US Alternative Songs"
 Done
  • "of a vinyl copy of the album was held at" → "of a vinyl copy of Blunderbuss was held in"
 Done
  • Target London, England to London
 Done
 Done
  • This para should be merged with the last one since the former is only two sentences long
Short paragraphs aren't necessarily a bad thing; I think in this case it's better to have the paragraphs separated, as the paragraphs before and after it concern single releases and chronological order of events is maintained.
On GA monitors, small paras definitely do look bad --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- On second thought, I don't think you're necessarily wrong here.
 Done
Partially done; this is not the album's lead single.
My mistake there, sorry --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For conciseness, I've changed it to just read "I'm Shakin'", without elaboration that the song is a cover (as this was already done before).
  • "became available for pre-order on October 16," → "was made available for pre-order on October 16 of that year,"
 Done
  • "on October 30." → "two weeks later."
I think "October 30" is less ambiguous than "two weeks later" (the latter could mean "about two weeks").

In general, is there any need to add instances of the year 2012? I don't think there's ambiguity in repeating a date without a year within a paragraph if a year was given a few sentences ago. (I'll get to the other changes later.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response for this is that it reads awkwardly to have months and days written without the year identified in articles --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching for Wikipedia's guidelines on this, and the best I could find was that the first bullet point on MOS:DATEUNIFY uncritically does this in a similar context (when year is given in proximity). MOS:DATESNO also gives examples of dates being used without years, implying that this is acceptable. For what it's worth, I also checked some featured articles and they seem to follow this convention (see e.g. featured articles on hurricanes). Hadger (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Came back to do some more changes. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tour

[edit]
 Done
  • "On February 14," → "On February 14 of that year,"
  • "on March 10 with" → "on March 10, 2012 with"
  • "On March 19," → "Nine days later,"
  • Remove wikilinks on North America, Europe and Australia
 Done
  • [61] should be solely at the end of the sentence after [60]
Partly done; see comments above regarding chronological order of citations.
  • Remove wikilink on Japan
 Done
  • "included supporting acts" → "included the supporting acts of"
I think this change sounds awkward.
  • "White's April 27 concert at" → "White's concert on April 27, 2020 at"
  • "could submit pictures" → "could also submit pictures"
 Done
  • The last para should be merged with the above one since it is only one sentence
 Done
  • Grand Ole Opry should be italicised
 Done
  • "he sold out at the" → "he sold out concerts at the"
 Done

I have similar issues with having to mention 2012 when I believe it would be redundant; perhaps we could ask for a second opinion regarding that? Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
 Done
Is there any issue with reintroducing people who were introduced multiple sections earlier? I think it's better to reintroduce people given that some readers may only be interested in reading about the critical reception, but I'm not sure if this is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.
It should not be done, as you are supposed to refer to people not by their full names if they have already been introduced by the real ones in an article --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, along with similar changes regarding introductions below. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the album contained" → "that the album contains"
 Done
 Done
  • "possibilities" and called" → "possibilities", and called"
 Done, although I wrote "he called" instead
 Done
  • "A review written for Billboard praised" → "The staff of Billboard praised"
This one was a bit odd. An old edit suggests that the original publishing of the review credited someone with the initials "J. A.", but the author credit was lost in moving the article online. I did some digging and it looks like that refers to Jem Aswad; I'm going to make this change throughout the article to reflect that.
That is fine, make sure it is backed up properly though --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ambition" and described" → "ambition", and described"
I added the comma but wrote "he described" instead.
  • "Jerry Shriver of USA Today said that" → "Shriver said that"
  • "Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone called its songs" → "Sheffield called its songs"
  • "praised several "great moments" in" → "noted several "great moments" on"
 Done
 Done
  • "than its forceful lyrics." → "than the forceful lyrics."
 Done
  • "Ben Rayner of The Toronto Star called the album" → "Rayner called the album"
  • Remove wikilink on the Raconteurs
 Done

Debate surrounding White's views toward women

[edit]
  • "The album drew mixed commentary" → "Blunderbuss drew mixed commentary"
 Done
  • "and that the lyrics of" → "and the lyrics of"
I think "that the lyrics of" sounds better and makes for a more explicit connection with the "commented that" earlier in the sentence.
  • "she remarked:" → "Misener remarked:"
 Done
  • "and asserting that his" → "while asserting that his"
 Done
  • "of White's collaboration with women," → "of White's collaborating with women,"
 Done
  • "Barton called White" → "Barton called him"
 Done
Per MOS:LINKQUOTE, I don't think this would be appropriate: "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." Barton definitely isn't arguing that White is championing a genre that declined in the 1960s; I think there's enough ambiguity about whether that article concern what Barton meant when he said "rock'n'roll" that the link shouldn't be included.
  • "Alexis Petridis asked White about" → "Petridis asked White about"
 Done
  • "was about modern attitudes" → "is about modern attitudes"
 Done

Accolades

[edit]
  • [78] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [79]
 Done
Partly done; my only objection is that I don't see a reason to change "was nominated for" to "received a nomination for", given that the former is more concise.
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive wording in the same sentence --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove same year part
 Done
  • ""I'm Shakin'" was nominated for" → "In 2014, "I'm Shakin'" was nominated for the awards of"
 Done
  • "was also included in" → "was later included in"
 Done
  • Table is useless since not only is it a total of just three shows, but that is all written out in prose above
 Done -- table removed.

Going to move on to commercial performance. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

[edit]
  • "number one in the United States," → "number one on the US Billboard 200," with the target
 Done
  • "first week sales in the United States totaling 138,000." → "first week sales of 138,000 copies."
 Done
  • "sold 33,000 vinyl copies in its first year, making it the" → "sold 33,000 vinyl copies worldwide in its first year, becoming the"
 Done
  • Remove the Europe certification since that is not backed up by the source, even if I look on archives at the Wayback Machine
 Done - I was able to find an archive on archive.is, but I agree with your concerns below regarding notability, and it's a due weight red flag that I can't find it mentioned anywhere else, so I've removed the source.
  • "it was awarded gold status by" → "the album was certified gold by"
 Done
  • Put RIAA in brackets
 Done
  • "indicating over 500,000 sales in the United States." → "indicating sales of 500,000 units in the US."
 Done
  • "The album was also certified" → "Blunderbuss was also certified"
I adjusted the first sentence of the paragraph based on the removal of the IMPALA sentence, so with that change, I believe changing "The album" to "Blunderbuss" would be repetitive.
Yes it would now, but the last sentence should either say "Blunderbuss" or "it" in the new order --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put ARIA and BPI in brackets
 Done
  • "indicating sales of at least 35,000 in Australia and 100,000 in the United Kingdom." → "indicating shipments of at least 35,000 and sales of at least 100,000 in Australia and the UK, respectively."
 Done
  • Put MC in brackets
 Done
I mistakenly marked this off when I actually did not do this per reasons described above (seems like there's no disagreement here between us). Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "selling at least 80,000 copies" → "selling at least 80,000 units"
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

[edit]
  • Put speech marks around "Love Is Blindness"
 Done
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

[edit]
  • Adapted from the Blunderbuss liner notes. → Credits adapted from Blunderbuss liner notes.
 Done
See MOS:REDIRECT comments above.

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]
  • There was a lot of issues with formatting, but I fixed the charts for you since it would have been too much to put on the review page and is not incredibly major so is fine for me to copyedit
Thank you for taking care of the formatting issues!
It is fine! --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly charts

[edit]
  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION
 Done

Year-end charts

[edit]
  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

[edit]
  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

[edit]
  • "of the record was pressed" → "of Blunderbuss was pressed"
 Done
  • "in Nashville, Tennessee." → "in Nashville."
 Done
  • "On April 16, Third Man Records" → "On April 16, 2012, Third Man Records"
 Done
  • "prior to its release." → "prior to release."
 Done
  • "of the album features" → "of Blunderbuss features"
 Done
  • "and a cover of U2's "Love Is Blindness" as bonus tracks." → "and "Love Is Blindness" as bonus tracks." with the wikilink
 Done
  • "The latter song appears on the U2 tribute record" → "The latter appears on the U2 tribute album"
 Done
  • Add release year of the album in brackets
 Done
  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION
 Done
  • Remove the note since this information is not required because the citations make that obvious
 Done -- I remember reading somewhere that Amazon isn't considered a reliable source for release histories anyway.
  • Format → Format(s)
 Done
  • Label → Label(s)
 Done
  • Add a separate row for Ref(s) and make sure that all of them are centered in the col
  • For the CD, vinyl and digital download release, too many countries are included here; see 1 to understand why this is an issue
Thanks for bringing this up! To be honest, I would be willing to trash the "Release history" section altogether (delete the table and move remaining information into the "Promotion and release" section as you recommended); there was a time when I was proud of the effort I put into making the table, but now I'm not convinced it provides enough useful information to justify its inclusion, and the concerns regarding the inclusion of all the iTunes links outweigh any benefit it may provide. In any case, it looks like many (if not most) album Featured articles don't even include a "Release history" section. If anything, I'll probably add a sentence to "Promotion and release" about XL Recordings being primarily responsible for the European release and Columbia Records being responsible for the release elsewhere, if I can find an RS supporting this.
On a separate note, I'm not convinced that the April 20 digital release date from iTunes is accurate, given that every other reliable source (including Jack White's own website) supports April 23 as the earliest release date. I made the April 20 change a few years ago, but I think it would be better to change the article so that it lists April 23 as the release date and ignores the barely-supported April 20 release date (assuming you have no objections to this).
Release history sections are a neat addition usually, though they are not considered vital to album articles and I will be glad to pass as GA without one. Also, if the April 20 release date is not backed up by more than one source, remove it because iTunes often has incorrect release dates after the time. --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- removed release history and changed release date. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target CD to Compact disc
  • Target vinyl to Phonograph record
  • For consistency, always refer to Columbia as that or as Columbia records
  • When [125] is used for separate countries next to each other in cols, then add the ref with a longer rowspan

See above for a discussion on potentially getting rid of this section altogether. (This would make the remaining requested changes moot.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]
  • Remove discography
MOS:SEEALSO seems to grant significant judgment as to which links to provide in the "See also" section. Given that the article contains significant discussion of Jack White's musical career outside of his solo albums, and given that it contains no mention of solo albums released after Blunderbuss, I believe it's useful for readers who wish to explore his discography to provide a link that makes it easy to do so. It seems like the inclusion of this link is compliant with MOS:SEEALSO, which is the relevant policy here. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is at the top of the template below? --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- somehow I missed that. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 08:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Good

References

[edit]
  • Copyvio score looks decent at 36.3%
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • Wikilink iTunes Store on ref 1 and cite as publisher instead
  • Cite iTunes Store as publisher instead on refs 2, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145
  • WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on refs 5 and 21
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of NME on refs 6, 38 and 53
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Pitchfork on refs 9, 11, 26 and 49
 Done
  • Cite Rolling Stone as work/website instead for ref 12
 Done
  • Cite Paul Tingen as publisher for ref 13, with no wikilink though
I believe I made the change you're requesting; please let me know if it's incorrect.
No, that is fully correct --K. Peake 08:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite NPR as publisher instead for ref 14 with the wikilink
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of NPR on refs 16 and 28; also cite as publisher instead
 Done
  • Cite AllMusic as publisher instead for ref 17
 Done
  • Remove the publisher from ref 18
 Done
  • Solely cite Musicnotes.com as the publisher for ref 23
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Uncut on ref 30
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 32
 Done
 Done
  • Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 34, 56, 59, 61, 63, 87, 89 and 125
 Done
  • Cite The New York Times as work/website for ref 35
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Steve Hyden and The A.V. Club on ref 37
 Done
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 40, 55 and 105
 Done
Removed this source entirely, as I don't believe one source's coverage of a song being uploaded to SoundCloud merits inclusion in the article. (I wikilinked the first instance of Guitar World in a reference.)
 Done
 Done
  • Zobbel → Zobbel.de on ref 52
 Done
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Guardian on ref 62
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Spin on ref 65
 Done
  • Cite Mashable as publisher instead for ref 66
 Done
  • Cite Marc Maron with last name followed by first on ref 68 and authorlink, plus change WTF With Marc Maron → WTF with Marc Maron with the wikilink
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on ref 71
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Atlantic on ref 74
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Hollywood Reporter on ref 78
 Done
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Los Angeles Times on refs 81 and 82
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date should be cited in the appropriate position for ref 83 and fix MOS:CAPS issues
 Done
 Done
  • Remove the publisher from ref 85
 Done
  • Remove The Music Mix EW.com from the title of ref 86
 Done
  • Remove the second publisher from ref 90
 Done
  • Ref 92 is dead and not archived anywhere, so remove plus that is not a reliable source in my opinion
 Done
  • Remove SPIN Newswire from the title of ref 94 and uncapitalize Spin
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of Ultratop on ref 101 and remove the second publisher
 Done
  • Remove the second publisher from refs 102, 103 and 104
 Done
  • Ifpi.gr → IFPI Greece on ref 106 with the wikilink, also fix the archive date format and add language parameter
 Done -- Looks like someone selected the wrong archive snapshot entirely, but I was able to find a snapshot that works.
  • Remove the second publisher from refs 107 and 108
 Done
See WP:REDIRECT comments above.
  • Norwgiancharts.com → Norwegiancharts.com on ref 111 and remove the second publisher
 Done
  • Portuguese.com → Portugesecharts.com on ref 113 and remove the second publisher
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the second publisher from ref 114
 Done
  • WP:OVERLINK of MegaCharts on ref 115 and remove the second publisher
 Done
  • Remove the author from refs 118 and 119
 Done
  • Cite Music Week as work/website instead for ref 120 with the wikilink
 Done
 Done -- replaced with an article from NashvillePost.com.
  • WP:OVERLINK of Stephen Thomas Erlewine on ref 123 and cite AllMusic as publisher instead, with no wikilink
 Done

Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
  •  On hold, wow that was a large review and props to you for all the work put into this article. I may have more suggestions about how to improve it once the above ones have been implemented though, or will make any minor fixes myself via copyediting most likely... good luck and we'll see! --K. Peake 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review has been re-opened, as the nominator has shown that they are still active; however, it will be left on hold for now since they have confirmed the fixes can't be implemented until next week
Thanks for the review, and thanks for your patience! I'll start making changes to the article shortly. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thanks again for the review! I believe I've made most of the changes you've suggested, and I appreciate your help improving the article. There are a few things I would like to address:

  • Does the MOS require the repetition of the year 2012 even in sections where the year has recently been given for a previous date? I believe in many places it's clear from context that the date given is in 2012.
  • In the Reception section: Is it strictly required that I remove reintroductions of authors who were introduced sections before? My personal view is that it makes it more clear for readers who come to the article and jump to that section, but if this is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy then I can change that.
  • I plan on removing the entire Release history table/section as I believe its abundance of promotional links outweighs what little benefit it provides. I also plan on changing the reported initial release date from April 20 to April 23, as I believe this is a better reflection of reporting from sources, and I don't think the April 20 date from the two iTunes sources is reliable. I wanted to run this change by you first, as it's a fairly significant change to make in the middle of a GA review.
  • What's the tool that you're referring to for archiving sources?
  • There were a few other places where I disagreed with your suggestions, but none of them are hills I'm willing to die on, so feel free to ping me next to changes that you'd still like to see made. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I think I've covered everything. There are still some disagreements I have, particularly regarding over-specification of years (see #Promotion), as well as a few things in #Composition. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hadger I have had a look through and your disagreements are totally passable, it may have took a while but I will now ✓ Pass this! --K. Peake 07:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blunderbuss_(album)&oldid=1246456720"