Talk:It's Blitz!

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

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.

Reference ideas for It's Blitz!

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Untitled[edit]

I've removed the soft rock genre tag, suspicion of vandalism, I am uncomfortable adding new genre tags myself (one man's soft rock is another man's dance music apparently), however i believe it should be done by some more one comfortable with these sorts of methods of categorizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgthatissonotrelevant (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I think assigning this album to New Wave and Synthpop is also bad. I just think, instead of Indie Rock, you should allocate this as a Indie Pop aka Alternative Pop Album. IT'S right there, in "Critical Reaction": some critics really named it this genre.

Critical Reception[edit]

1. It looks and sounds like it's been written by fanboys. 2. 7/31 reviews on Metacritic are below 8/10. This percentage should be represented in the section.

Now I like these guys as much as the next person but I'm also a firm believer in NPOV. For example, Bloc Party's Silent Alarm got over 82/100 on Metacritic but the article shows a clear NPOV and both sides of the coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.217.155 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, really. I love this band and this album but there's bound to be a negative review somewhere. If so, anyone feel free to add it to the page.

...If there isn't any notable negative reviews, maybe the album is just that good? Heh -- just a thought. 24.137.93.248 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be one or two negative review as per the Bell curve distribution. Check the metacritic page for the album (it's in the ref list) and pick one. I'm sure one would do. 129.234.217.155 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no overtly negative reviews on metacritic, 40 being the lowest score, under their standards that is a mixed review, this dispute is kinda pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quazy qual (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this dispute is pointless. Why did you take the time to go on metacritic and read all the reviews for this album in particular, then get on wikipedia and start shit? Get a damn life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time this dispute ended - do you think we can remove the neutrality banner now? Thelostlibertine (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the "Critical reception" section. I have added a couple of reviews that were more "mixed" with quotes and sources. This ends the dispute in my opinion. I have removed the dispute tag, please discuss if you have any further queries. (LostLikeTearsInRain) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (GMT)

Personnel[edit]

Does anyone have access to the album leaflet or know some other possible source for information about the recording personnel? If you do, then please add the list the article. It seems to be the only issue keeping the article away from being promoted to the C-class quality status by WP:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality_scale. —Quibik (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Paul, Aubin (May 27, 2009). "Glastonbury to include F*cked Up, Brand New, Specials, Bloc Party, Bruce Springsteen, Nick Cave, Blu". Punknews.org. Retrieved October 8, 2022.

[1] Paul, Aubin (May 27, 2009). "Glastonbury to include F*cked Up, Brand New, Specials, Bloc Party, Bruce Springsteen, Nick Cave, Blu". Punknews.org. Retrieved October 8, 2022.

[1]