Misplaced Pages

Talk:Not Your Kind of People

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Good articlesNot Your Kind of People 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: June 7, 2015. (Reviewed version).
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAlbums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
WikiProject iconAlternative music Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconElectronic music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen in Music
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Loudness War

I believe this topic to be of notable value to the article's content, but two biased fan's of the group, Garbagemty and Deepblue1, have made several non-constructive section blanking edits upon the introduction of any content pertaining to the subject.

The content, as originally written:

Waveform of "I Hate Love" from the CD release

The album has been criticized by numerous fans for being poorly mastered, containing excessive use of dynamic range compression and poorly performed equalization patterns. On the Dynamic Range Database – where albums are ranked on a sliding scale from 1 to 20 (1 being the worst, 20 being the best), based on the difference between the peak decibel level of a recording and the recording's average loudness – Not Your Kind of People was given an average rating of 5 out of 20, indicating "bad" mastering on the DR Scale.

Each individual statement made in the section was supported by relevant sources - including one very handy source, an interview with the album's own engineer which testified to the album's compression, dynamic range compression and unorthodox EQ'ing. There was no issue with the content as it stood, several users simply continuously blanked the section on numerous occasions because the content was of a critical nature, as detailed here. Fans need to be aware that Misplaced Pages is not an advertising site for any band, and that all notable content - whether positive or critical - should be included in an article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Forums are rarely WP:RS, the loudness-war doesn't look like one either. I haven't looked properly at the interview, but I don't think it establishes the album was criticised for it, I'm not sure if it even establishes it was unusual. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Automatic Systematic Habit waveform, please? While I'm more than well versed enough in audiophilia to know why it's there (loudness wars & overuse of compression), the connection to the article is in no way explained, so from the perspective reader it's just an unexplained image in the middle of things. Either explain why it's there (if you can find valid sources) or get rid of it. As it stands, the image makes no sense in the context of the article, meaning that it is both unnecessary and confusing to the lay reader. I don't disagree that the album is poorly mastered (though excellent in all other regards), but the opinions of a group of fans and audiophiles does not Misplaced Pages worthy make. 24.16.241.113 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd take the time to read the article as it stands even today, you'd see that the use of over-compression is actually discussed. Three other reviews also make note of it. If you want to take the time to find other sources that relate to the album's sound issues, then please feel free to add them to the article. Also, for future reference, if you bring up an issue on an article's talk page, it's not then the best idea to just go ahead and unilaterally remove the content before any one else has had a chance to respond to you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
From a lay perspective, the connection between the use of compression and the waveform graphic is still inobvious. Without an explanation of how the waveform graphic demonstrates the criticism of over-compression, it's still out of place. If the graphic is going to say, the connection between it and the criticism section needs to be either obvious or explicitly explained. Currently it is neither. 24.16.241.113 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You are greatly underestimating the views of the "lay" person. In either case, I've already said that such subject matter is explicitly discussed in the article. From three different sources, no less. If you wish to add even more sources that go into more detail, then go ahead. In case you do go ahead with such, I feel almost obligated to warn you that you should probably prepare yourself for a massive amount of IP-socks disrupting your work. Just read the rest of this talk page: I believe an expansion of such material will result in the same people rising out from the woodwork - and that's why I don't want to expand that section myself. But if you want to deal with all of that, then please go ahead. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

June 2012: vote for these Review Scores

Clash (magazine)'s review is notable.
Metacritic considers Clash Magazine as one of the most important magazines/sites for reviews. Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" lists Clash Magazine in the best Music magazines along with ] and Spin : see here the list of the best "Music magazines" for Metacritic here.
At the opposite, Artistdirect doesn't appear on Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" which means that artisdirect is not considered as important by journalists.
Henceforward, here's my vote for the Review Scores : YES for Clash Magazine and NO for Artistdirect.
To me, the list of ten reviews must include : Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, Clash, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. These ten reviews reflect all the diversity of opinions in a objective way and equitably, respecting what critic reviews said about the album : see here critic reviews of "Not Your kind of People on Metacritic.
Woovee (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
'Note that unregistered users that had appeared in the last days on wiki, to directly take part in this vote and to support the one and only opponent to this issue, won't be counted. For instance, look at 178.128.76.165 's history. First ever contribution to wiki (2 June 2012) is... to take part in the current issue and to support the one & only opponent. This also includes 111.196.174.232 & 178.138.32.14 & 77.49.254.23 as they are all from the same person who changes of ips. Each time, first contribution to wiki is for this issue of this page. And they all speak in the same way.. Semi protection is very useful for that. Woovee (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't even know how to use the Internet! All those IPs are me. Don't you know IPs change over time? If you can't use the Internet, then don't use it! I'll just go create an account.
And I still don't understand why you're trying to push a crap review. The article should be protected from YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.254.23 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The article should be protected from YOU"
Exactly! The article should be protected against Woovee and Homeostasis07 because they try to insert a lame review in an otherwise OK Reception section. You are the vandals. You didn't edit this page with good faith but with hidden interests (your edits are not constructive). Read again that Clash review: do you really think it's an objective and non-biased review?
So, I strongly reject this abysmal Clash review. There is already one really bad NME review.
"Let's vote for these Review Scores: "Clash (Magazine)" and "Artistdirect""
What "Artistdirect"? I put another review from The Irish Times, more relevant and balanced than Clash & Artistdirect reviews. Anyone with good sense will see that. Why did you revert this review and act like you didn't see it? Deepblue1 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I vote for Irish Times too. Seriously, that Clash review barely describes two songs of the albums destructively. It's also very biased. Whatever reason it's being pushed in the article, I don't know. There's a much better review offered! What the hell is wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.254.23 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Woovee that Clash should be incorporated in favour of the much less notable Artistdirect, and suggest also that the review from the barely notable musicOMH be removed to appease the 10-review-only policy. I also think Woovee hit the nail right on the head when he said the professional ratings infobox should include : Allmusic, Clash, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. They're by far the 10 most commonly notable reviews available for the record, and offer an accurate insight on general opinions of the album thus far. And, a heads up to admins, Deepblue1 is instructing that anyone with a "Misplaced Pages account please vote for The Irish Times review" here via a garbage fan forum (under the username "Alin", requires registration to view). The user has demonstrated that he has major issues, per WP:Own, and is now attempting to subvert the talk process by flooding the page with users who share his own specific thoughts on the subject. In this article's short life span, if there has been any disagreement in its content, user Deepblue1 has been there, continually reverting and instructing others to do so (also evidenced in the link I provided a moment ago). User has also lacked any sense of civility and courtesy when editing, 495908493, 495535182, going so far as to accuse other users of being paid advocates for Clash, instead of simply providing a rational reason for his editing. I believe this page will get nowhere if he's allowed to go on like this unhindered. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You deserve a Nobel Prize for your very long and boring essays about nothing. I think you're paranoid (pun intended). The problem is that you're a major pain in the ass. You're too obsessed with that particular review (like you are/were with Loudness War). What is your interest to post that Clash review with any price? You gain something? You work for them? If the Clash review isn't posted you're going to die?
  • "The user has demonstrated that he has major issues, per WP:Own" You and Woovee have issues. You and Woovee tried to insert the review with any price. That bothered me and other anonymous users. It wasn't there at first. There were already 10 reviews posted. It's not your own article to write everything you want: you need consensus. And guess what? I will revert everytime your unconstructive edits. If not me, then other users with good sense. Trolls like you deserve this kind of behavior. Good night!Deepblue1 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's put the reviews face to face
Vote please! Deepblue1 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
it's in the same issue : henceforward, no need to create another topic. We saw your point of view and the ones of your multiple doubles/clones ips recently appeared on wiki to support you as the one & only opponent. This is a small reminder : the ten Review scores include both Clash and Irish Times as three registered users recently said it to you. The complete list of ten reviews contains : Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, Clash, The Guardian, NME, Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, Spin, The Irish Times, Virgin Media. Woovee (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you paranoid? That's not my username. Probably other users don't agree with your unconstructive edits. Stop saying lies about me. Deepblue1 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit reverts on expansion of reviewers' quotes

Homeostasis07, as I advised you on other pages, quit reverting sourced edits (which adhere to Wiki policy) that you disagree with. You are engaging in, WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, but especially Edit warring, which as an experience Wiki user you should know better than to perpetuate it and too know you can be blocked. If you continue to disagree, do a Request for comment. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Homeostasis has not bothered to respond in discussion.
Full text, which is currently Cherrypicked, rooted in WP:TE by user mentioned, should actually read contextually (as stated in source): "NME, who, despite hearing "flashes of their previous class" in songs like Battle In Me proving "they haven’t completely lost their confrontational electro-rock streak", considered too much of it "pedestrian, anodyne and utterly unremarkable" - and - "...before summarizing, "it's all enjoyable, and will probably go down better than their last two releases (other than the production, which renders every buzzing guitar about as powerful as a wasp rattling around inside a tin-can.)" . Quotes are now copy edited to reflect what the source says, per WP:COPYEDIT, WP:STICKTOSOURCE.--Lpdte77 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for future reference, you may want to PING (ie. @Lapadite77:) a user before trying to accuse them of "ignoring" a discussion. You've been involved in enough discussions and arguments (ie, "As an experience Wiki user") since your December 9, 2013 register date that "you should know better." This page was not on my Watchlist, so I had no idea you were trying to do this. You're basically just "cherrypicking" and fabricating disagreements at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"This page was not on my Watchlist, so I had no idea you were trying to do this" - you seem to have a habit of blatant lies/misrepresentation. This section was started because you engaged in edit warring through 2 subsequent reverts ( & , 2nd not assuming good faith) of this copy edit I did. You are not watching the page, but are making reverts on it? Hah. I'd pinged you on simultaneous discussion in another article and you edited multiple times after my creation of this section, hence, since you do watch this page (read: reverts), it can be concluded that you did not bother to reply but instead just reverted. It might be that you forgot to respond, but regardless, it's neither here nor there. As far as the content, I'm glad this matter is settled. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Main articles and Talk pages are completely different things. If you actively remove a talk page from your Watchlist, then, no, it will not appear on your Watchlist. Case closed. Everything you're implying here is just BADFAITH. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You actively participated in discussions above in earlier sections (e.g., "Loudness War" section), and were recently making edits in the article page, hence from that too one can deduce such. I'm not making a bad-faith accusation, at least not remotely intentionally, It is a completely rational conclusion one can make based on the information had, and as I also stated, in such a case, it could also be you forgot to respond. But I should have pinged (Edit: looking at the start of this section, I did ping when I created the discussion). In any case, yes, cased close. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Statements in #Recording section

Throughout the recording sessions for the album, the band mentioned several song titles via Facebook and Twitter; These included: "Alone", "Animal", "Choose Your Weapon", "Time Will Destroy Everything" and "T.R.O.U.B.L.E.". Manson confirmed on Twitter that Animal became The One, a song from the deluxe version.

In the penultimate paragraph of the Recording section is unsourced, and tagged. It will be deleted if no source is found (specifically, before GA review). Editors watching this article (or the one who added the statements) are welcome to find the sources and cite it.--Lapadite (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Igordebraga, know if it's verifiable? Lapadite (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Dunno. (still searching the Facebook feed. and that's what you get when someone jumps on your procrastination to nominate the page...) igordebraga ≠ 13:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Searching a Facebook feed? Sorry. Personally, I'm the worst offender of procrastination (.e.g, been meaning to improve the first two records' articles, which are a mess.). I found all the titles in the links, one of the Tweets linking to a Facebook post. Don't think Facebook sources are needed. --Lapadite (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The procrastination in that case is my own, postponing work on this article. But who knows what the band's Facebook page can offer? igordebraga ≠ 19:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Not Your Kind of People/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll be reviewing this for GA. Sorry it sat here for so long. Give me a few hours to review. BenLinus1214 16:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

@Lapadite77: Comments

  • Sources on genre?
  • Should Stunvolume be capitalized? Even if its stylized that way, it's a bit disconcerting to the reader.
    • I'd forgotten about this GAN, thanks for reviewing it. Alternative is sourced in #Critical reception (The Bangkok Post, Time, Pitchfork sources), Electronic rock is sourced in #Critical reception (NME) and #Composition and style (KROQ-FM and MTV sources).
    • Stunvolume appears to be stylized that way by the band, however I've seen a couple of reliable sources that use standard capitalization. Changed it. Lapadite (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead

  • I'm not too thrilled with the social media sources here, even if they're from the band or members of the band. Also, are they really necessary per WP:LEADCITE.
  • Maybe some mentions of the other singles of the album? They appear in the infobox and are singles, yet "Automatic Systematic Habit", "Big Bright World", and "Control" are not mentioned in the lead at all. Some release dates or preliminary info would suffice, i.e. "The album also spawned three more singles, "Automatic Systematic Habit", "Big Bright World", and "Control", released on May 8, June 9, and October 9, 2012, respectively."
    • I've moved sources in the lead to the #Composition and style & #Release and promotion sections. Left the source citing the direct quotation. The social media sources (Facebook and Twitter) are used as primary sources, for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" without interpretation, such as self-release information, and credits also verified by liner notes.
    • Singles: I've added your suggestion without the dates, as I don't think they're notable for the lead, and they can be found in the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Background

  • Image that would be good here?
  • I can't finish this now, but the second two paragraphs in this section are much too long compared to the first. I'll cut them myself, but I would consider restructure this. BenLinus1214 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • On Butch Vig and Shirley Manson's side projects, the source doesn't really seem to cover the side projects you mention.
  • At the part cited to footnote 14, there's no end quote.
  • The double quotes in the middle of that paragraph are jarring, so I would put "Manson added" at the beginning of that second sentence.
  • The server for "thebeatjuice.com" is down right now, but why is that a reliable source?
    • I've not come across a relevant Background-related image that can be used.
    • I don't see the issue after the paragraph split?
    • Side projects: Removed the first irrelevant citation. The other two sources cite the sentence.
    • There's an end quote in the quotation cited by footnote 14.
    • Changed to "Manson added".
    • thebeatjiuce.com is BEAT magazine. I've not found a web archive of the interview. Lapadite (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Composition and style

  • Not really any major problems here (very informative and well-written), but maybe restructure this—you have some nice notes about specific songs as well as the general style of the album. I would put the general stuff up top followed by specific song notes in track order.
  • Also, image?
P.S. Images in every section isn’t a requirement for GAs. Lapadite (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that, and I'm not saying that it's a requirement. I'm just saying that it would be nice to have it in maybe one of these two sections. That's all. BenLinus1214 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Recording

Release and promotion

Good.

World tour

That quote is a little bit of an odd cliffhanger. Either expand this section and elaborate or remove the quote.

Critical reception

  • The first paragraph was way too long--I split it.
  • I don't like the phrase "the likes of"

Commercial performance

Track listing

  • Why are the sample credits in this section?
    • Removed it.

In other media

  • I don't think this section makes sense for the album page. It seems a bit disconnected from the rest of the article and I don't think its necessary. The "Blood for Poppies" and "Control" parts are covered by their respective pages, and is the other one significant enough to warrant its own section, especially because it's about the title track and not the album?

@Lapadite77: Clear this up, and I can pass. BenLinus1214 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Pass.
@BenLinus1214 and Igordebraga: Thanks.
Categories: