Talk:Blood on the Leaves

Blood on the Leaves 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.
Review: December 22, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zmbro:

Just started a review of this. It looks great and hopefully can be promoted to GA status soon! My comments:

"The song has received" - do we need the word "has" in there?

Done

"but plans fell through" - this sounds informal/not encyclopaedic, perhaps "plans were abandoned"?

Yeah that's much better – fixed

"Since release" - "since its release"

Fixed

"inspired him to switch up his" - this also sounds slightly informal

I just removed that sentence. I haven't worked on this article in quite some time but reading it back, it just re-emphasizes the previous sentence so we'll just ditch it

"over rolling piano cords after which West's vocals begins." - "rolled piano chords"? (spelling error in chords)

That's embarrassing :-P – fixed

"After some time, the song unleashes" - could we be a bit specific, eg. after two minutes? Three minutes? Also, is 'unleash' the right term here as this feels informal?

It's at about the 1:06 mark so just "after one minute".

"contribute to the atmospheric production" - do we know what that means in particular?

I'll look into this a bit more.

"interpreted as a possible reference to the idea of Jay-Z being unfaithful.." - "speculated as a reference to Jay-Z being unfaithful.."? Personally I would use 'speculated'. But you could probably tweak that sentence so it's less wordy, eg. remove 'to the idea'.

Yeah that's much better – fixed

"but the idea fell through." - too informal as mentioned before

Changed to "plans were abandoned" and added a quote from Lynch where he mentioned not having "ideas"

Critical reception section - was there any negative or mixed feedback to the song?

I had a pretty hard time with this. Most reviews of Yeezus I found were of the album itself and didn't go track by track, but the ones that did (that I found) were universal in their praise for "Blood on the Leaves". It seems to me to be the most acclaimed song on the album. Do you think I should try to continue looking for a mixed/negative review?

"Upon the release of the album" - "Upon the album's release"? Try to reduce words.

Done

Source 45 to Official Charts - is this going to the right page to see the track position?

It wasn't. And according to the official page, this song never charted there, so I just removed it.

Just sourced properly that it did chart on UK R&B, formatting was incorrect though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the article is mostly well-written. Appears to be stable and on-topic. I saw sufficient inline citations and sources, with archive links. No copyright violations were detected - there was one source that showed 47% violation likely but that site is quoting this Wikipedia article. Some appropriate media provided. Neutrality - this will pass. If there are any critical reviews/viewpoints, then they should be added. Hope this was useful, thanks Just Lizzy^(talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy150 Thanks for grabbing this and for the review! Have a quick question about the reception, but other than that I believe I've fixed/responded to everything. Thanks again :-) – zmbro _(talk) 02:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for addressing the points. If you can't find any other reviews, then it doesn't matter, but obviously will add to the balance. If you can expand/rephrase 'atmospheric production', then that will also be useful as it sounds a bit vague. Thanks, Just Lizzy^(talk) 13:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy150 Turns out both refs that were on that sentence said nothing about "atmospheric production" so I just ditched that sentence. Also combined background and composition since the comp section seemed a little small. – zmbro _(talk) 16:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro:Just saw the Personnel section. Please rewrite it as per guidelines here. Just Lizzy^(talk) 18:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy150 Whoops was not aware of that. Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 21:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now, thanks for your edits. Just Lizzy^(talk) 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! – zmbro _(talk) 15:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]