Talk:The 2nd Law

The 2nd Law 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
July 10, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
October 26, 2015	Peer review	Not reviewed
December 12, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

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

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.

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progressive Rock Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Second vocalist?

Just curious why there is absolutely no mention, reference, or credit, of the second lead vocalist on the album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.181.236 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Album info copied directly from band article

I for one think that the info on this page needs rewriting - it's copied and pasted directly from Muse's wikipedia article. It just looks cheap and easy. I'm planning on giving this article of a bit of a rewrite once we've got more info on this album. Cross Pollination (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the 2nd law genres

I've putted the genres of the album in the description box or however is it called, and those contributions were replaced by just alternative rock even though the genre of the album is much more complex and harder to define .. that is why I've putted that it's experimental rock, classical, alternative rock, progressive rock, art rock and I could even go on.. so why ? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfc38 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panic station

The panic station music video was removed a few hours after being uploaded I think, due to a rising sun flag appearing in the video which people found to be offensive. I have no sources for this, but would this worth mentioning should there ever be some sort of article from reliable sources about this incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.203.98 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

I would talk to all users that continued to edit the singles box in the Template:Album. The actual singles from The 2nd Law are:

"Survival", released as a digital download (although Muse didn't consider it as a single, but it's in the Muse Shop and on iTunes);
"Madness", released as the first official single;
"Follow Me". This song was released as a free download (but it's a live performance of the song), while a remix by Stuart Price was released with the original cover art by Muse on December 2012 in the UK iTunes Store and on the Muse site.

The song "Supremacy" was released (like "Madness", "Follow Me", and now "Panic Station") as a promotional CD single also, few UK Promo CD-R of "Survival" and "Follow Me" were released with the official cover but it doesn't mean that "Supremacy" it's a single, despite the cover art that is on the discography section of the official Muse site. But a live version of "Supremacy" was released as a digital download single in February 2013, but it has a different cover.

Now, we'll have "Panic Station" as the next single. A cover art was also released but we must attend June 3 to see if the song will be released as a commercial single. It's all. --SuperVirtual (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only for English Wikipedia Supremacy it's not a single? Strange. On the official site it's written clearly that Supremacy is a single from The 2nd Law. http://muse.mu/news,supremacy-lyric-video-online-now_1500.htm?loc=&currency=gbp (third SINGLE!) you must learn to read the fonts instead of blather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.232.152 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Muse official site reports it, but the song wasn't released in the digital stores, like iTunes, Amazon or 7digital. There are some promotional CD-Rs but it doesn't imply that "Supremacy" is a single. --SuperVirtual (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yet with this story? if itunes and amazon did not exist then there were no more singles by any artist, because now only come out digitally. And then supremacy is located in the album digitally (so more than enough). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.232.152 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Class

Can't believe this article is graded "Start-class". Mayast (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The 2nd Law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Split the opening sentence after Muse.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in a span of ten months" no need for "a span of".

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a little thin for an article of such length, see WP:LEAD for some pointers on expectations.

I've expanded the lead, but I'm not sure if it's too big/bulky or focusing on the performance of the album's singles too much. Aria1561 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" studio to begin recording their sixth studio album" repetitive use of "studio"

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bellamy jokingly described" who's Bellamy?

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid linking in the quotes, per the MOS (i.e. "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.")

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""something radically different" from their prior releases. " ref needed here for this direct quote.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"experimented with music and sounds in particular, which makes this album their most experimental piece ever" reptitive and according to whom?

Sentence removed. Aria1561 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that "Does It Offend You, Yeah?" is an electronic rock group while the band's article states they are a "dance-punk" band...

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"brass players" do you mean brass instruments? I would link this.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly repeating first names and relinking band members in the Composition section. Link full name first time and thereafter refer to by surname, assuming no ambiguity can arise.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The electronic-tinged track "Follow Me" was produced by Nero." tinged? And ref?

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Matt Bellamy revealed..." just Bellamy.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The 2nd Law: Isolated System" and "Follow Me", were featured in the film adaptation of the novel." ref

Done – Couldn't find a reliable source for "Follow Me" though. Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suddenly relink Muse midway through the article.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a trailer for their next album, The 2nd Law, " odd, this article is about "their next album", just "a trailer for The 2nd Law" will suffice.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"On 9 August, Muse... " ref for this?

Done – Couldn't find one; removed. Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles section could use copyediting and tweaking to run for better prose.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid overlinking, you relink BBC Radio 1 just a couple of paras after you haven't linked it.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petridis' quote doesn't quite equal a "criticism" to me.

I've moved it a bit further down as I think it still belongs in the section. Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic->AllMusic.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"their excursions" not entirely clear who "their" relates to here, perhaps start the quote one word later and say "Muse's "excursions..." instead?

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy noms need refs.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using hash to mean "number".

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the commercial performance section split from the Charts and certifications section when both are intrinsically linked?

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any point in hiding the deluxe edition details.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You link mixing at Lord-Alge, but just before Nero is also mixing, link items on their first use.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end charts table, once you sort it, you can't restore the original format, because of the Chart (2013) heading I suspect. Plus it sorts incorrectly because it places the 2012 and 2013 together, not necessarily under the right heading.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Albums Chart and Italian Albums Chart, both missing a ref.

Done – Couldn't find a source; remvoed. Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same table sorting problem with the Certifications table, the Summaries heading messes it up.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first See also is an external link, the second and third are already linked in the aritlce so don't need to be in a See also section.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the bare URLs (see WP:LINKROT for reasons why).

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use consistent date formats for publication and access dates in the references.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This set of comments is a quick first run-through. There's a lot to sort out, I'll put it on hold for a week to see if we can make some progress. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of these issues, but there are still some left to fix and some improvements (lead, etc.) to make. Aria1561 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well as I said, I've put it on hold until 8 July. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be closing this review tomorrow unless I see any further activity. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of the issues that you've told me to fix. Aria1561 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to the "experimental" comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to. I've replied now. Aria1561 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final bits:

Certification should sort by sales, i.e. Triple platinum sorts above platinum which sorts above gold. If not, make it unsortable.

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13, ref 16, ref 55, need work.

Done – Ref 13 has been removed due to being a dead link, 16 and 55 have been fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
Be consistent with linking, you link UK Albums Chart in ref 107 and not 108, but you link Official Charts Company in 108 and not 107. And you give the location in 108. This comment applies to all of your references, so please check them all, not just those I've noted here.
Some of your online references have dates, some have access dates, be consistent, some have none, please consider WP:REF as you do this.

Final note: many of your references are poorly formed, please fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have tried to fix every reference in the article. They shouldn't be poorly formed anymore. The consistent linking problem, shouting problem, and consistent dating problem should be fixed now. Every reference now has a 9 July 2015 access date, as well. There were references that didn't have a publication date in the source, might I add. Some also contained dead links (those have been removed). Hopefully, there wasn't anything that I missed. Aria1561 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just need a replacement for the Twitter reference which isn't considered RS, and then we're good to go I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Aria1561 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, now promoting to GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this. :) Aria1561 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A colourful sea-like creature (known to some as a brain)

For some reason the description of the album cover describes it as a colourful sea-like creature. It's a brain though, surely? CrisH7 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's even mentioned in the article that the cover is based on a scan of the human brain. This is one of those articles where I know the description is wrong, but I'm not sure what to write to correct it. -- I need a name (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]