Talk:Invaders Must Die

Invaders Must Die was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Stand Up

Shouldn't it say samples One Way Glass by Manfred Mann Chapter Three? Since it clearly samples the horn section from this 1969 version. While the 1972 version by Manfred Mann's Earth Band is actually a remake of the 1969 song. 1969: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ2CDjXREIc (on the 34s mark) 1972: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laQ-RLh1dT0 (on the 59s mark, the guitar replaces the horns, but at a slower pace). Adaobi ^YELL!!_done 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tour support

They're to be supported by Dizzie Rascal on their 2009 tour, not Dizzy Gillespie, who is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.81.145 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How d'ya know he's dead? Did ya kill him? 92.39.205.205 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews being removed

Why was the drowned in sound review removed from the page? Surely someone is not removing all negative reviews and making a biased page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.158.24 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As biased as I might be towards more favourable reviews, I had to notice the Rolling Stones review has also mysteriously vanished. 122.107.178.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It does seem that only negative reviews are being classed as "badly written". This in my opinion exhibits bias. Perhaps we could just include all reviews from credible sources for the time being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who removed it, but I'm not happy with it being there. Could be slightly biased being somewhat a fan of The Prodigy, but it's just a crap review in general. Doesn't say much about the record and most of it is just nonsensical, irrelevant, wannabe-poetic drivel. Tough to say if it is removing the negative reviews but I think there's just as much argument to say it's removing the badly-written reviews.--131.111.195.8 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being constantly vandalised with any non-positive revews being removed. An overview of the actual critical response to the album can be found at aggregate review sites such as Metacritic[1] Perlonkid (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with review

Although I respect Rolling Stones, I find it hard to accept their negative review. It's also difficutl to agree with their comment on The Prodigy's relevance, when their site is saturated with images of Britney Spears and Michael Jackson's tour dates. They're more of a tabloid these days, more of a paid marketing gimmick for the latest U2 album. My 2cents... -asmadeus (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite me not agreeing with several of their reviews, they are an important musical magazine. If we removed them here, we'd have to remove some great reviews they've given. Such as from critics like Lester Bangs for albums like Another Green World. I disagree, but it would be biased to remove them all together. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the fact that the Rolling Stone review should be removed, because it has a ridiculously small amount of information about the album, compared to other reviews. ParaDoxus (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Robert Christgau writes similarly small reviews, but he even has his own templates for his reviews. The length of a reviews shouldn't warrant it's importance on inclusion, the review source should be the most important statement. Besides, Keeping these reviews in is important for historical analysis. For example, I was working on the Here Come the Warm Jets article and Rolling Stone was the only review source to give the album a really really negative review on it's first release. When the album was re-released, the magazine gave it a 5 star rating. It's important to keep this review in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many reviews on this page. There should be five max, I have cut down to seven, without looking at the scores as I don't really give a fuck what other people think of the album. Someone needs to cut away a couple more in my opinion. Having 10 reviews on the page just looks silly. Magpie1892 22.38 BST, 5 September 2009.

If your opinion on the amount of reviews is a problem, consider bringing it up with WP:Albums. Several Good Articles's and Featured articles on albums feature ten reviews, which is the maximum. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singers

Does any one know who sings in the different songs? I had an argument with one of my friends that it is not Keith Flint singing on Thunder, but i think it is! Can anyone verify/reject this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.198.117 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, "Thunder also borrows from an old reggae tune (an obscure cut by the Brentford Allstars, resung by the guest vocalist Brother Culture)."

"Reception" summary

I've removed the summary which preceded the reviews table. People were edit warring over their own personal interpretation of what the reviews indicated. This should ideally be discussed here before being re-added. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic review...

I suggest that the allmusicguides review, that i have already put in code here, *Allmusic link be included in the reviews section as almost every other album / ep page on this website has an allmusic review on it. Now, its a 3 star review and that might look weird around all those 4 / 5 star reviews but i think that its a good review and fair, i get the impression alot of the overly gushy reviews here are a bit biased. ther has to be some diversity no? I love The Prodigy, only their mid to late 90s stuff though, but I personally think the new album is a dud. To have all these glowing reviews on such a weird record is a bit weird anyway and as said it should provide a broader spectrum of opinion. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allmusic review is added and the article does state it's negative reception. One user continuously comes in to revert the edits to make overtly glowing reviews making the article contradict itself. Ah well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the allmusic review again. It does seem like someone is removing all the bad reviews, if this keeps up I suggest we notify mods/admins - 122.106.163.229 (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this several times. Check out the user page for User:Jorfo to see for yourself. He's been banned under multiple account names already. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invaders

It doesnt seem to specify which track was actually released under the name 'Invaders'. The information inn the article is vague. Can anyone clarify this? Alinblack (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should only be 10 reviews, as per Wikiproject albums

Consequently I removed 3. The 3 I chose purely as these publications featured in neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. If anyone would like to reinstate these in prose or whatever, here they are:

Nik thestoned 12:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]