Talk:Whitesnake

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello SilverBullitt, I'll be take up the review for this nomination and present it to in some time. I hope you find my feedback to be helpful and that I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  SilverBullitt, I have completed the review and it appears to be close to the good article criteria at present. I have listed some issues in the comments and assessment sections below, and will put it on hold till they are resolved. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Tayi Arajakate! I fixed the issues brought up in your review. During previous GA reviews on other articles, YouTube refs normally considered self-published have been accepted when they're interviews of the band's members themselves. I also didn't add too much on the band's musical style post-2003, since there really isn't much more to talk about. Potential sources all state the same: since reforming Whitesnake have continued their hard rock style while occasionally mixing in some of their blue elements. If there are any additional problems or you feel I didn't fix the ones already brought up in the review well enough, be sure to let me know!--SilverBullitt (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  SilverBullitt, they are interviews but there are potential copyright issues in linking to channels which aren't the original publishers of the interviews. Otherwise, I think you have more or less fixed the issues but I have one concern in that the article especially the section on style and influences may be using too many quotations/explanations from members of the band, particularly Coverdale and not elaborating much on secondary sources which have covered them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, I cut down the number of quotes in the section on style and influences. I feel that there are a significant number of secondary sources, namely music critics, which help give a broader sense of the band's style in contrast to what the band members themselves may feel. But again, this is just my opinion and I can do some additional work on the section if you feel it is necessary. I also fixed most of the YouTube refs, but there are still a few problematic ones, namely ref 182, 337, and 350. All of them are interviews and contain important information in relation to the article. Any suggestions on how to deal with those?--SilverBullitt (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  SilverBullitt, I would suggest dealing with them in the same way you have dealt with the others, removing the link and using the information from the video to cite them without a link. This seems possible with 337, the other two don't have much information other than the publisher and the year so I'd suggest just including the interviewer as the author for it to be identifiable. Regarding the style and influences section, though I would suggest elaborating more using the secondary sources but for the purpose of the good article criteria, it is broad enough in its coverage so I'm going to pass the article now. Good work on the article in general and congratulations on the successful nomination! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, I fixed the remaining YouTube refs. Everything should be in order now! Thanks for the review and the pass!

Comments

• "Through him, they were also able to recruit bassist Neil Murray ..." This line should specify Marsden, because it can sound confusing regarding whether it is Marsden or Moody.
• Ref 23 uses the tabloid Metro (RSP entry) which should be replaced with a better citation, and if that isn't possible then the line along with citation should be removed.
• "Whitesnake supported Dio for several show in the US, after which they toured Japan as a part of the Super Rock '84 festival." This line cites a source which is an announcement of the tour before its occurrence, which would need to be replaced.
• Some of the youtube links are using non-official channels, i.e ref 84, 181, 336, etc.
• Style and influences doesn't cover anything from the 2003–Present period.
• "In response, Coverdale jokingly stated: "Hey, I never said I was Billy Shakespeare, mate!" This seems unnecessary and doesn't add anything, since the next line covers his overall response.

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is largely clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No manual of style issues found.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all material in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are largely reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright issues found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article has a generally broad coverage.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article cover all its major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is largely neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is largely compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use an captions are appropriate.	Pass

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Typo: change "Whitsnake" to "Whitesnake" at the start of the 1981-1982 section. 139.68.213.64 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Place of Origin: London or Middlesbrough?

The article claims the band is from London, yet some sites (especially IMDb) list them as a band from Middlesbrough. Which one is the right place of origin of the band? Zapho653 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to verify the claim that the band is from Middlesbrough. The only connection I've been able to find is the fact that Micky Moody is from Middlesbrough. The sources cited in the article state that Coverdale began putting together the intial line-up in London in 1977. That's the closest to a place of origin that can be ascertained.--SilverBullitt (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

'Slip of the Tongue' sales

"Slip of the Tongue was certified platinum in the US and has sold approximately four million copies worldwide by 2011..." The web cite shown here states that Slide It In sold 4 million copies by 2011, not Slip of the Tongue. Yes, there was an article that Slip of the Tongue sold 4 million but by August 1990. --ExcitiveStan3680 (talk) 2:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead and else

@SilverBullitt: considering your recent edit:

1. Was removed mention of band's first release (EP Snakebite). Perhaps it can pass, but why?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Was removed mention of two out of seven songs ("Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City" and "Walking in the Shadow of the Blues"), with a rationale "the lead doesn't need to namecheck this many songs". How and why? Lead is an introduction and abstract of every section of the article, mentioning the most significant information. All articles of music artists mention significant songs/singles of the artist. There's no reason not to mention "Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City" as it is the most popular song the band was known until the late 80s. It is an iconic blues rock song.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is my rationale for the changes:

• Generally most articles about musical artists rarely mention EPs in the lead unless they had some significant importance to the artist's career. In Whitesnake's case, Snakebite wasn't very significant aside from being their first release. However, I can understand that there is an argument to be made for including it, seeing as how it is namechecked in the first subheading of History. So because of that, I wouldn't oppose to it being put back in.
• I removed "Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City", "Walking in the Shadow of the Blues" and "Love Ain't No Stranger", because they were of no real importance to the lead. They were just namechecked, i.e. "this album included this famous song". In contrast, "Fool for You Loving" and "Here I Go Again" were hit singles that helped to further the band's career. "Ain't No Love" I could see included, because it did become a live staple and is featured prominently in the article itself. "Walking", however, is not mentioned in the article at all. A lead is first and foremost supposed to summarize the contents of the article.

If we both know what is and what should be in the lead, then why did you remove both "Ain't No Love" and "Ain't No Stranger"? Both songs are relevant to the band, album's, notable and mentioned several times in the article. They must be in the lead. The song "Walking" was included by me because the lead was written differently and I was in the process to introduce its mention in the article as well because at the time it is also one of their most notable songs. However, mentioning other two songs is more significant and enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What I'm mostly getting at is that the lead shouldn't be overly long. Yes, notable songs should be included, but what makes a song like "Love Ain't No Stranger" notable? Its only mentioned once in the History section and it wasn't a particularly successful single. The band have many other songs that were far more commercially succesful. Like I said, "Ain't No Love" can be put back in as far as I'm concerned, but I don't really understand why "Love Ain't No Stranger" should be ncluded in the lead aside from the fact that its a popular song among fans. Not every famous song necessarily needs to be namechecked in the lead. I do understand where your coming from and in part I agree, but I also feel the lead shouldn't be streched out just for the sake of namechecking all the popular songs. As for "Walking", if it bears some significance in the article itself then maybe, but in general we may need a second opinion on this topic. SilverBullitt (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see how and where this is making the lead long. There's nothing long about it. Other bands and music acts have far longer leads than Whitesnake. "Love Ain't No Stranger" is most successful single from the album and has notoriety by critical reception, it is Top 5 band's most notable songs hence has to be in the lead ([1], [2], [3] etc.). It has nothing to do with the popularity among fans (but gives additional weight).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Guinness Rockopedia (pg. 476, "Ain't No Love" as "anthemic cover")

British Hit Singles & Albums (pg. 9, "Ain't No Love" and "Ain't No Stranger" etc.)

Legends of Rock Guitar (pg. 211, "Ain't No Love" and "Ain't No Stranger")

Martin Popoff's The Top 500 Heavy Metal Albums Of All Time (pg. 136, Slide It In listed as 241, "Ain't No Stranger" etc.)--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

How about something along these lines for the lead:

Following the EP Snakebite in 1978, Whitesnake released the albums Trouble (1978) and Lovehunter (1979), which included the live staples "Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City" and "Walking in the Shadow of the Blues". Whitesnake soon began to make a name for themselves across the UK, Europe and Japan, with their subsequent albums Ready an' Willing (1980), Live... in the Heart of the City (1980), Come an' Get It (1981) and Saints & Sinners (1982) all reaching the top ten on the UK Albums Chart. Additionally, the singles "Fool for Your Loving" and "Don't Break My Heart Again" reached the top twenty on the UK Singles Chart.

By the mid-1980s, Coverdale had set his sights on breaking through in North America, where Whitesnake remained largely unknown. With the backing of American label Geffen Records, Whitesnake released Slide It In in 1984, featuring the singles "Love Ain't No Stranger" and "Slow an' Easy", which furthered the band's exposure thorugh heavy airplay on MTV. In 1987, Whitesnake released their eponymous album Whitesnake, which became their biggest success to date, selling over eight million copies in the US and spawning the hit singles "Here I Go Again", "Is This Love" and "Still of the Night". Whitesnake also adopted a more contemporary look, akin to the Los Angeles glam metal scene.

SilverBullitt (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. For "Walking in the Shadow of the Blues" also made an additional edit on the album's article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Great! I'll add the new lead and see if I can work "Walking" into the main text as well.

SilverBullitt (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote

3. Was removed quote by PopMatters about Coverdale's performance with Whitesnake at 2003 Rock Never Stops Tour, with a rationale "the concert review quote doesn't have much relevance to contents of the section". How? The section's content is literally about Coverdale and Whitesnake, reforming, performing live including a mention of Rock Never Stops Tour. The review is perfect fit to show Coverdale's quality of performance and reception at the time. Even band's first releases, at least relevant excluding irrelevant compilations pushed by record company, since reforming were live DVD/album Live... in the Still of the Night and live album Live... in the Shadow of the Blues (2006) which are also mentioned in the section. Section literally has 5 (!) paragraphs about lineup and live touring/releases before mentioning new studio album.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'll rephrase. The question isn't really about whether the quote is relevant, but rather, is it at all important. Yes, the quote does highlight Coverdale's quality of performance and reception, but that is never questioned or brought up in this section's contents. The quote reads more like a blurb. A better way to include it would be to have some text in the section regarding Whitesnake's reception after reforming, rather than including it in a quote box.

It is important and looks better as a quote box (with moving Aldrich image to the very beginning of the next section with right align). Doesn't need specifically to be questioned or brought up in the section content as there's already whole live performing context, touring, success & award for DVD.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I do see where you're coming from, but to me the quote box seems very disconnected from the section itself. I do feel it would work much better worked into the text itself. Honestly, we might need a second opinion on this one too. SilverBullitt (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, we will get a third opinion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with SilverBullitt here that the quote seems a bit too much. We rarely put things in quote boxes per {{quote box}} (the MOS is not that explicit, but does say MOS:PULLQUOTEs are not allowed). It's putting a lot of prominence on a single review, which could indeed be incorporated into the text of the section. Some of the text is not that relevant ("Not even Plant.. from that era") —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. @SilverBullitt, would you have an idea how to incorporate it (not necessarily whole quote)? Having a paragraph dedicated to the reception after reforming sounds interesting & expectable to read.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find additional sources referring to the reunion tour and its reception.

SilverBullitt (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Image

4. Was removed image from a 2022 show, with a rationale "the pic from the 2022 show in Helsinki isn't entirely necessary as one is already included in the infobox". That does not make any sense. Also, it was not used the same photo from the infobox. It is relevant to show a photo from 2022 farewell tour and band's most numerous lineup until now, also due to much text, the article needs some image there to make a break. Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not very fond of overstuffing an article with pictures, but I can't understand your reasoning for including it. As for it being from the same show as the one in the infobox, I feel like its not serving an illustrative purpose seeing as how there already is a picture of this particular line-up in the infobox. However, I can understand the other side to this argument.

We shouldn't give infoboxes more signifance than they deserve compared to text. They are just an addition an article can be without. It is the same thing like with the lead but even more as we need to have the content in the article's body rather than infobox.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the picture can be put back in, I don't have any strong objections regarding this issue. SilverBullitt (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright - can be considered as concluded.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Moody

5. Was removed quote by Moody not willing to be a rock star which is far more relevant to the section and "guitar hero" thing mentioned in it than his quote about Coverdale. Why?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• The removed quote didn't add much to the contents of the text. It actually broke up the flow. "He later attributed his departure to a growing dissatisfaction working in the band, particularly with Coverdale, as Moody "never wanted to be a great big star ... I found it difficult to be a rock star, I really did". Moody remarked: "Me and David weren't friends and co-writers anymore." The quote feels completely shoehorned in and disruptive. Also, if you look at the quote in context in the source, it isn't exactly presented as Moody's reasoning for leaving the band. Its more just a statement.

SilverBullitt (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind breaking the flow of a sentence, it literally and directly not only added but connected to the content of the section, to the whole "guitar hero" thing mentioned in the section. It is a literal statement for the main reasoning Moody left the band - he wasn't fit for the band's needs anymore. Meanwhile, the Moody's quote about personal friendship with Coverdale is practically almost irrelevant for the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To say Moody's relationship with Coverdale is irrelevant is absurd. In the quote (which is exapnded upon in the source), he explains how his working relationship with Coverdale no longer was what it used to be, which played into his decision to leave. No longer fitting the band's needs absolutely played into his decision to leave too. The problem isn't the quote itself, its where it was placed. The quote can be added back in, but it can't be in the middle of a sentence, which starts off with Moody's dissatisfaction working with Coverdale and then veers off into talking about how Moody wasn't enough of a rock star.

What I would suggest is to structure it like so: "As Whitesnake finished up a European tour in October 1983, Micky Moody left the group. He later attributed his departure to a growing dissatisfaction working in the band, particularly with Coverdale: "Me and David weren't friends and co-writers anymore. [...] David was a guy who five, six years earlier was my best friend. Now he acted as if I wasn't there." Moody also felt uncomfortable with the level of influence he felt John Kalodner was having on the band. As he explained: "I never wanted to be a great big star. [...] I found it difficult to be a rock star, I really did." SilverBullitt (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that's good - can be considered as concluded.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)