Talk:Era Vulgaris (album)

Sick Sick Sick, 3's and 7's

Both of these songs can be found on youtube, as well as Era Vulgaris.

The new album is going to be awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.181.251.66 (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The article mentions the distribution of "Era Vulgaris"/You Know What You Did, the streaming of "3's & 7's" and "Sick, Sick, Sick", as well as the leak of the latter, do you think the article would be improved if these references were changed?--Skomorokh 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Era Vulgaris leaked yesterday or the day before, I don't know if that's worthy of mention and I don't know how I can prove it without giving direct links. PitchBrick 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It's mentioned. red157 10:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the rating on www.allmusic.com is not available, so how come someone put it there in advance?

Mistakes

A quick look at this page shows some innaccuracies - the UK release date is June 11 not 12 and Uncut gave the album 5, not 4 stars. 84.201.158.100 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops - I misread the US release date as the UK one. And the Uncut website gives the album 4 stars, but the magazine in front of me gives it 5!

84.201.158.100 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Metacritic gives the page and correct score. It's much easier to get a score wrong on a website than a magazine. So I believe it should be changed to 5 as well. red157 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much easier to change an error on a website than one in a magazine though. --MartinUK (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As true as that is, it remains a 5 as it was never stated by the magazine as incorrect. Red157 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way?

Is there any way of putting review of single into the infobox of single (in this case 3's and 7's)?
Broken soul 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

After reviewing the article, I believe that it does not satisfy the criteria for a good article. Here are a few points that I noticed:

• The cquote template is grossly overused in this article. While it is a good tool to punctuate a point, it should never be used in the lead, and the critical reception quotes should just be incorporated into text.
• After the blockquote in Pre-release promotion, the text gets very dull and listy. Four of the first five sentences following the quote start the exact same way.
• Too much of the article is in short one and two sentence paragraphs. Incorporate some of these small paragraphs into larger ones.
• "On April 9, the final tracklist was posted on the official Queens of the Stone Age website" needs a year included. It's not good to start the article with a list, either, I would recommend moving the track list to the end.
• Citations should be placed at the end of the sentence, not in the middle unless the sentence features two contrasting points.
• Be consistent with your citation method. I'd recommend using citeweb and citenews, although this is not necessary. Citations should all list the publisher (i.e. Rolling Stone instead of Rollingstone.com), publication dates (if listed on the source), retrieval date (even if the source has a publication date), author (if listed by the source). Also, settle on "last retrieved" or "retrieved" - don't mix them.
• Citation 5 is blank.
• Fill in a citation for that citation needed template.
• Nothing is mentioned about the commercial success of the album, which leads to the next point...
• Frankly, the album fails the stability part of WP:WIAGA. This album was released too recently to meet the criteria of a good article, and will have to be frequently updated in the upcoming week or two as new critical responses are released. Currently, next to nothing is known about the commercial reception of the album, which is a critical point of any encyclopedic entry of an album. You'll need to wait a little while to see how this album performs as compared to previous efforts.
  

Teemu08 05:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've strikedout the ones I've fixed. Still more work to do. - kollision 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The objections here seem resolved, as have the tasks in the to-do list. I've renominated the article as a result. Skomorokh ^incite 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanegan sings "Make it Wit Chu"

The following conversion has been stripped of a rather personal approach on debating by Johnnyw to return the focus on the matter at hand.
I'll eat my hat if that's not Mark Lanegan singing lead on "Make it Wit Chu." Yet this article fails to give him credit. I'd also swear he sings lead on "Into the Hollow." The album liner notes are sparse and don't specify which songs Lanegan is on. He has no writing credits on these two songs, but that says nothing about whether he sang on them. --Dawight 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

red157 strongly insisted that Lanegan is only performing on "River in the Road" - 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawight replies by pointing out a Yahoo! review (http://tv.yahoo.com/stone/show/33855/news/urn:newsml:cp.org:20070611:tv-29242019__ER:1), and Amazon review (http://www.amazon.com/Era-Vulgaris-Queens-Stone-Age/dp/B000PKG6TE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8193085-1479951?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1182289256&sr=8-1.) who agree with him. -- 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

red157 states that both reviews are mistaken. red157 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continues unedited below.

Dawight, you are unfortunately mistaken. I love Mark as much as the next guy, but it's definitely Josh on vocals here. If you listen to the Desert Sessions version of this song and read the liner notes you will see that Josh is just using a different lyrical style. The Yahoo link you posted is just a misinformed reviewer. Hope this helps clear things up. --Wikichristian 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the topic, I think Billboard.com clarifies it quite well:

the only audible guest on the aforementioned tracks was on-again/off-again contributor Mark Lanegan on "River in the Road." The group has also re-recorded the song "Make It Witchu," which Lanegan previously sang on volume nine and 10 of Homme's long-running Desert Sessions releases.[1]

-- Johnnyw talk 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But that article is also wrong, Josh also sang the DS version of Make it Wit Chu. Albiet it's much harder to tell than on it's Era Vulgaris counterpart. red157 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Lanegan wasn't even on DS 9&10, or was he? I am not at home, don't have the album with me, but AMG doesn't list him in the credits section at all. --Johnnyw talk 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, he wasn't. Only on 7&8. red157 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So if anything, with the large number of failed attempts of the journalists to do their homework, I think it's safe to say that it'd be best to trust the actual liner notes of the albums. Just my 2 cents on the matter. And for the record, I do not hear Lanegan's voice at all on 'Make it Wit Chu', and I not only have heard him in Screaming Trees, but Mad Season and on Master of Reality's "Deep in the Hole" album. Not to mention earthlings?'s 'Rock Dove' on their "Human Beans" album. So I'm pretty sure I know his voice well enough to take the guess and say that he is not singing on 'Make it Wit Chu' Zombi3 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

More than 2 songs from Desert Sessions

The article states that there have been 2 songs that originated from Desert Session which is incorrect. Here is a list of other songs originally recorded for a Desert Sessions Release:

Desert Sessions Volumes 3 & 4

  "Avon" => Queens of the Stoneage

  "Monster in the Parasol" => Rated R

Desert Sessions Volumes 5 & 6

  "You Think I Ain't Worth a Dollar, But I Feel Like a Millionaire" => Songs for the Deaf

Desert Sessions Volumes 7 & 8

  "Hanging Tree" => Songs for the Deaf

You missed In my Head. red157 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"In my Head" was one of the two refered to in the article. The other being "Make It Wit Chu".

Unreliably sourced and unsourced info

I've removed the following addition to the article:

As of July 11, 2007, the album has sold 94,577 copies in the US. reference = http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46325 Billboard Top 200

Although it looks legit, good faith, plausible etc., the source is an online forum. At this point, the article is not far off a decent shot at GA, so all claims need to be reliably sourced or removed, per WP:CITE. Skomorokh ^incite 04:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

The article is much better, but there are a few things that need to addressed before its given GA status:

• Citations 44 and 45 need to be properly formatted
• Billboard is a magazine and needs to be italicized whenever it appears, including in citations.
• Same with Rolling Stone
• Suicide Girls.com shouldn't be italicized in cite 21
• cite 23 needs a publisher.
• All Music Guide shouldn't be italicized in cite 43
• I would avoid saying "earning the band their lowest rating on Metacritic, 75 out of 100.", since not all of the band's albums are listed on that site.
• A few more negative reviews are needed. Try [2] or [3]
• A number of magazines in the infobox also need to be italicized.

Also, if you're looking to improve the article beyond GA status, I would recommend trimming out some of the album charts in the lists section. However, its fine for a GA. Teemu08 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Both additional negative reviews have now been added, and the Metacritic reference is restricted to the two other studio albums that have reviews. Are there any additional concerns to be addressed? Skomorokh ^incite 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Pass. Teemu08 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wayhey... Thanks. Is the Songs for the Deaf article at that paticular 'point' yet? Red157 07:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Track listing of Deluxe edition

The tracklisting on my copy reads the 12th song as "The Fun Machine Took a S***! and Died". I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, but in this case the band have censored themselves. What should the tracklisting on this article say? Pasta of Muppets (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and it aspires to accuracy, so the article should reflect the exact formatting the band uses, if possible. Do you have access to the physical album? If so, please feel free to correct any innaccurate details here, citing the liner notes. Mahalo, the skomorokh 12:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

http://s416.photobucket.com/albums/pp246/PastaofMuppets/?action=view&current=MPLetter0002.jpg I'm not all that literate with citing and sourcing with Wikipedia, but there's a picture of the track listing. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that's good enough for us. Thanks for the correction! Skomorokh 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This lowkey isn't GA quality by 2023 standards

Seriously compare it to more recent album GAs like For Emma, Forever Ago or My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and tell me this cuts it. Somarain (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)