Talk:Modern Life Is Rubbish

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern Life Is Rubbish article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Modern Life Is Rubbish 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
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This 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 articles

Why no review infobox?

Throwing giant slabs of text at the unacquainted is a little much. Are the critical scores not up to what the article's chief writers think they should be...? 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:F48A:1771:FC03:7A3 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather unusual and a huge deviation from the wikis manual of style with regard to critical reception sections in album articles. I checked the articles history, it has never had one and no mention on the talk page regarding it either. As a nominated Good Article could one of the contributing editors explain this? Rob van vee 08:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced scores box per above. Hopefully an anorak can supply the score from the non-viewable Chicago Tribune review, as they always grade albums on an out-of-four-stars basis. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:D1ED:92AC:D8C5:7789 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the longstanding GAN-approved version for now. The problem with this review box is that it combines contemporary reviews (from 1993) with retrospective ones, confusing the reader. Also it combines album guides and unreliable sources (Rocksucker?) with mainstream publications. Further the box does not at all summarise the text; 3 out of 5 reviews aren't in it. Lastly, this article was written with this specific structure in mind, and a lot of attention was paid to prose and narrative flow. Adding infoboxes and (sans discussion) re-sectioning the article based on non-mandatory MoS guidelines does not always improve the article.—indopug (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting the boxes to reflect contemporary and retrospective scores a la OK Computer (a featured article, not merely a good one)? Again, just throwing out big ol' blobs of music journo speak is unfair to non-anoraks. The score box was designed, and adopted by most album articles, to give a concise summary of critical opinion. Your need for "specific structure" seems to be tending toward WP:OWN. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:C8BE:A3D3:9653:D6A7 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposals and, yes, there does seem to be a case of WP:OWN plaguing this article, in addition to its WP:TONE and WP:OR issues. Many of the statements that keep getting restored in the article lack inline citations, or are worded in a poor biographical manner inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If the blanket reverts keep happening I will suggest a GA reassessment. ilil (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022

Copied and pasted from my talk page:

Apologies for dragging you back in. I didn't think the would-owner, Indopug, would just brazenly return to his old antics (censoring reviews and certified sales figures he doesn't like), but since you offered to revert his behaviour if he did, I leave this comment. If one were to honour the edits made since his sweeping revert, the article would look something like this. Thanks for your help. 51.199.19.249 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit after quickly determining that it reintroduced all of the issues I had spoken about over two years ago. ili (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'a severe media backlash soon after its release'?

What 'severe media backlash'? Why are there no links to something that just sounds like opinion? 185.13.50.186 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's expanded upon in the Background section. —indopug (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]