Talk:Hold My Liquor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up for a review if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

I do not see a citation supporting that this song was recorded in 2013. I would also recommend adding this somewhere in the body of the article, preferably the "Background and composition" section, if a source can be found. If a source cannot be located, then it should be removed from the infobox.
I am uncertain about the inclusion of "industrial" in the infobox since the song is described as having "industrial flourishes". This reminds me of previous GANs about song articles where genres identified as an "influence" were not enough for the infobox. Unless the source clearly described this as an industrial song I would remove it from the infobox.

I've gotten into arguments with multiple editors over this. It annoyed me to the point where I almost abandoned working on this entirely because of it.

I am sorry to hear that. Having to deal with genre warring can be very frustrating. However, unless a source clearly describes this as a hip-hop song and it is included in the prose, then hip-hop should not be included in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Apologies for bringing it up since it was recently discussed. I am just going from my past experiences in GANs. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the genre to the lead.

Done

I would something to the lead and the body of the article about the record labels involved with the song's release. It is a little odd that they are only mentioned in the infobox.

Could I have an example of this? I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Apologies for that. I was thinking about doing something similar to how the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article references the record label in the prose alongside the infobox. However, since this was not released as single, I could not think of a natural way to incorporate it into the prose so I think it should be fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (is a song by American hip hop recording artist Kanye West), I think it would be clearer and more direct to say (American rapper). I could understand making the descriptive phrase for West broader since he does so many different things musically, but I would still argue he is more well-known as a rapper and it would make more sense in the context of this specific article.

Done

For this part (Built upon a pulsating synth beat with metallic stabs), I would like "synth" to the synthesizer article as it could be helpful to readers.

Done

For this part (the song sees West stumble into an ex-girlfriend's home for reckless sex,), I am uncertain about the word choice with (sees) as I think that it is a little too anthropomorphic to say that a song "sees" something. I would use something different.

Fixed

This is more of a clarification question than a recommendation. For this part (with lyrics that contain references to substance abuse, relationships, and self-image.), I am little uncertain what you mean by "relationships" as that can be read to mean many different types of things. Is this song referencing specifically romantic relationships or a certain type of relationship or is it more broad? Just wanted to make sure.

All Popdust says is "relationship issues", which is what I mean when I wrote "His lyrics talk about issues with substance abuse, relationships, and self-image" (in the body). So, regarding this, I don't really think I can get much more specific. – zmbro _(talk) 19:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (The song received very positive reviews from music critics), I am uncertain about (very positive reviews), specifically the "very" part, as I have never seen that used before. It is not necessarily wrong, but I just found it a little odd. If you can only find positive reviews for this song, then I think something like (The song received critical acclaim) would be a stronger choice. If you do use this suggestion, then I would change this part (Despite its acclaim) to avoid repetition of the word "acclaim" twice in the lead.

Changed to 'highly' and 'however'

I am uncertain if the Complex list is notable enough to put in the lead as it somewhat puts an undue weight on this review over the others.

Changed to just "one reviewer placed the song on his list of the best songs of 2013."

For this part ( West performed the song live on the), I do not think "live" is needed as that is generally assumed when an artist performs a song.

Done

For this sentence (It was covered by both Lorde and ceo in 2013.), I would remove "both" as it is not really necessary.

Done

Background and composition

Link Kanye West when you first mention him and use his full name.

Done

I would add the year that Yeezus was released as it was done in the lead.

Done

Again, this is more of a clarification question, but is the song's placement on the track-listing important enough to be addressed here? I am not saying it is wrong or needs to be removed, but I would be interested to hear your perspective on what value this adds to the article and a reader's understanding of the song.

I guess it's a personnel preference for me. Other Yeezus tracks have their placement in the tracklisting like that so I wanted to keep it consistent but if you think I should ditch it I will.

Understandalbe. It should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (almost didn't make the studio album at one point), I would shorten "studio album" to just "album".

Done

I have a question about this sentence: (The track contains vocals from American rapper Chief Keef and singer-songwriter Justin Vernon of Bon Iver, the former of whom sings the hook.) Would it be possible to avoid using "the former"? I agree with the following essay, Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, that the latter/former should be avoided. However, this is my stylistic preference and the link goes to an essay not a policy so if you prefer the current wording that is fine. Just wanted to raise it to your attention.

Changed to "American rapper Chief Keef, who sings the hook,"

The prose in the section only points out that Keef sings the hook, but aside from the image caption and a part in the "Cover versions" section, it is not directly stated that Vernon sings the intro so I would address that.

Done; going along with the previous comment: "singer-songwriter Justin Vernon of Bon Iver, who sings the intro."

For these parts (West had previously appeared on a remix of Chief Keef's song "I Don't Like" in 2012) and (Vernon previously contributed vocals to West's songs), I would remove "previously" as it is already clear from the release dates that this was before this particular song.

Done

This is not required, but I would put citations in numeric order to help with readability.

Done

I am uncertain about this sentence (Their performances were first heard at a listening party for Yeezus.), specifically the part "performances were first heard". I think it would be better to say "They first performed", and I would also clarify that the performance was of this song as multiple songs were discussed before this part so it is confusing on what is being referenced here.

I'm now really iffy about this because per the source, Vernon and Keef didn't perform themselves but rather their contributions were heard for the first time. I changed the sentence to "Their performances on "Hold My Liquor" were first heard at a listening party for Yeezus." at the moment but if you still think I should change it I will. – zmbro _(talk) 18:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the BJ the Chicago Kid version count as a cover? I would think it would fit in the "Cover versions" section instead of here?

Yep, fixed

For this part (its instrumental is built on pulsating synths and guitar), it should be "a guitar".

Done

For this part (His lyrics talk about issues with), again, I am not certain about the combination of "talk" with something like lyrics. I would use a different word here.

Changed to 'reflect'

The lead mentions that Mike Dean is a "longtime collaborator" with West, and I would also add that here as it helps to really tie things together.

Done

This section should clearly define who the songwriters and producers are and have all the credits and personnel information in prose form. See "Style" (Taylor Swift song) to see what I mean, and yes, I see the irony of using a Taylor Swift song article as an example to help with a Kanye West one lol. But the information on the writing, production, and recording processes need to be made clearer in this section.

Done but please tell me if I did that wrong. – zmbro _(talk) 18:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as I do not see this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by a random IP user who said it's redundant. – zmbro _(talk) 18:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert the edit because the information is necessary for the article. The information you typed seems good to me, although I have one question about this part (Venezuelan record producer Arca and Noah Goldstein) since it is a little strange to have a descriptive phrase for Arca without one for Goldstein. I would remove it altogether as the word "produce" appears three times in that sentence anyway in different forms, and it is already clear from the context of the sentence that Arca and Goldstein are producers. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Apologies for the delay with my response. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this late addition, but I have a question about this phrase "is an elegant house ballad that contains industrial flourishes". What does "elegant" mean in this context? It sounds somewhat like a part of a review (like a critic praising the song for being elegant), and if that is correct, I would remove it since this section should be more objective about the song's composition/genre. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was part of a review so I removed 'elegant'

Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Again, I am uncertain about the use of "very" in "very positive reviews". I have even more of an issue with it since this section includes a more negative review.

Changed to 'highly'

I think this part (with many praising its instrumentation, West's vocals, and Dean's guitar solo, with multiple critics describing the track as "woozy.") would benefit from revision. I have been told in the past to avoid the sentence structure (with X verb-ing). I do not have a particularly issue with it, but I think this part reads awkwardly to have this type of sentence structure nested within each other.

Done

For this sentence (The Velvet Underground's Lou Reed gave the song a positive review in The Guardian saying: "Hold My Liquor is just heartbreaking, and particularly coming from where it's coming from – listen to that incredibly poignant hook from a tough guy like Chief Keef." before adding that the synthesised guitar solo that closes the song was "devastating, absolutely majestic"). I would make the part about the guitar into its own sentence.

Done

Since West is an American artist, it is weird to see non-American spellings like "synthesised". I would go with American spellings considering this is about an American artist.

Done; have no idea how I didn't catch that before

This section seems to jump around between different reviews without a clear narrative. I would use the following resource, Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, as a guide to help improve this. For instance, it was confusing to jump from the more negative Rolling Stone review to a positive NME one. There are also a lot of quotes being used so without that clear narrative in place, the section can be a little overwhelming and difficult to read.

Since I wrote most of this in like 2 days, I'm embarrassed to say that this was probably me being lazy :-( I'll work on paraphrasing. – zmbro _(talk) 19:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It is hard to write these section so it is understandable. Let me know when you have completed the revisions to this section. Aoba47 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

I would move this section after the "Commercial performance" one as critical and commercial reception sections are generally group together. It may also be beneficial to combine this section with the "Cover versions" one as they are quite short with a small, single paragraph each.

Done

I am a little confused by the beginning of this section? For the Yeezus tour, did West only perform it during these instances or was it a standard part of the setlist? Was the gremlin-like monster just a part of that one performance or was it used for every performance? Was it added during that performance and then subsequently kept throughout the rest of the tour? Apologies for all of the questions, but I got a little confused here.

My assumption about this is that it was performed regularly on the tour, as it was on the supporting album and that's typically what most artists do on tours is perform new songs. However, without assuming, I was only able to find these sources about specific dates and not a generalization (The Yeezus Tour page setlist is also only based on the first show). Do you think I should try to find something that generalizes the setlist? – zmbro _(talk) 00:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation as that clears up to me why this part is structured that way. If there is not a source that provides a more general statement on the tour's set list, then I think this is far as it is best to represent the available sources as accurately as possible (which is what you have done). Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not think it is necessary to include "live" when saying a song is performed. I think it is generally assumed a song is performed live unless stated otherwise.

Done

For this part ( When speaking forgetting the lyrics,), I would remove "forgetting the lyrics" since that was already explained in the previous sentence.

Done

Commercial performance

As I have stated above, I would put this section directly after the "Critical reception" one.

Done

For this part (managed to debut at number 6 on the), I would spell out "6" as "six" instead.

Done

Cover versions

Again, for this part (Lorde performed a cover version live), "live" is not needed.

Done

I have two issues with this sentence (A cover version was shared by ceo under the title "My Liquor" to his SoundCloud on December 9, 2013, but later deleted from it.) I think it would be better to avoid the passive voice in the beginning and the second part is not entirely correct grammatically. I would instead say (ceo uploaded his cover version to SoundCloud on December 9, 2013, but later deleted it.).

Done, that's honestly SO much better.

Final comments

I hope this review so far is helpful. I have only focused on the prose, and I will look through the references (i.e. doing a spot check, looking at formatting, and seeing if other information is out there on the song) once these comments are addressed. A majority of them are rather minor, but the more major ones are about the overall structure of the "Critical reception" section and missing production information from the "Background and composition" section. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Thanks for taking this on! It's been quite a while since I've edited this article. I realize now from your comments that there are quite a few issues, which I think stem from the fact that I wrote the majority of this article in the span of like 2 days so I obviously missed much of the prose quality. Then I basically put it up for GAN then moved on :-P I also know other editors have worked on this too so there are different writing styles present (same situation as "Ultralight Beam"). I'll work on this today to fix up these issues. Thanks again for reviewing :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am glad that I could help in any way. You have done a lot of good work with the article! Let me know when you have addressed everything, and I will look through it again and look more carefully at the references. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

For Reference 24, I would not put the word "Video" in all caps per WP:SHOUTING. Even if the word is formatted that way in the source, it would avoid that here.

Done

That is my only note for the references. Once this is addressed along with the part about the production notes in the "Background and composition" section, I think this would be ready for promotion. Also, if you have time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, let me know if you need clarification with anything, and let me know when these two points are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think I've taken care of everything, with a question about the tour stuff. You've always been a great help to me with my projects and I'm forever grateful. I'd be happy to check out your FAC. Thanks again! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 00:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the patience with the review. I am glad that I could help. I will ✓ Pass this as a GA. Great work with the article! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]