Talk:Different Gear, Still Speeding

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviews

It's a bit biased. What I'm saying is, reviews are "mainly positive" as long as you only post the "mainly positive reviews" on here. I'd say it's mixed.

The UK mags that have always backed Oasis, are positive, but it's got slated on other sites and magazines

There's always going to be some site somewhere that doesn't like something. But if most reputable sources give a positive review then reviews are generally positive. Most of the media undersold Morning Glory and oversold Be Here Now when they were released so it's not like their endorsements mean much anyway. 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.210.188 (talk)

Lad mags don't really count as "the most reputable sources" though. Ignoring, say, The Guardian (3/5) and showing Loaded (5/5) has nothing to do with reputability (Guardian is far more reputable than Loaded) and everything to do with making it appear the album has been reviewed more positively than it actually has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.119.27 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "the most reputable sources", I said "most reputable sources". A single score (3/5 in your example, which is a decent score) doesn't change much. Reviews are generally positive or they're not. So which is it? 05:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.210.188 (talk)

They are generally positive, not saying they aren't (I'm not the person who wrote the first bit, I wrote the lad mags bit). I just thought The choice of reviews were suggesting most of the reviews were mostly 4 or 5 stars, which seemed disingenuous when review aggregators like metacritic have mostly reviews in the 3 star range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.119.27 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only truly negative review I've seen is The Fly, which I've several times had to put back on the article after someone has removed it. Are there any other properly negative reviews you know of?

Drowned In Sound's review was relatively negative.

I do agree that the Reviews section and the article overall needs work, but I gave up doing so until the album was released because there were edit wars going on. Now that it's out I suppose I will do it at some point. -- Smurfy 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Release Date

I don't know what's going on, but I'm in Australia, and it's the 11 of March now, yet I've had the album for well over a week (I think I got it on 28th of February, actually). Don't know where you're getting your info, or if the chain store SunFlower music was skirting the rules, or what, but anyway I'm suggesting the sources for the release dates might be innaccurate, and you might want to get a corroberating source. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every review is inflated.

NME didn't give the album 9/10, rather 7/10 (see article's own reference http://www.nme.com/reviews/beady-eye/11874) Same story with Spin. Not 9/10, but 7/10 (http://www.spin.com/reviews/beady-eye-different-gear-still-speeding-dangerbird) All Music didn't give it 5 stars, rather 4 stars and no actual review (http://www.allmusic.com/album/r2135520) Q gave it 8/10, not the same as 5 stars (http://www.anydecentmusic.com/review/2610/Beady-Eye-Different-Gear-Still-Speeding.aspx) Clash didn't give it 9/10, but 7/10. (http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/beady-eye-different-gear-still-speeding) Uncut gave it a 6/10, not 10/10 (http://www.metacritic.com/music/different-gear-still-speeding/critic-reviews) The Fly gave out two stars (flys actually), not 5. (http://www.the-fly.co.uk/words/reviews/album-reviews/9296/album-review:-beady-eye) I've never heard of TMR. Reference takes you to a small blog, where the writer gives it a 3/10 (not 9/10). Yahoo is correct with 7/10, however. As is stands this is the only review which can be checked and verified. --Joewithajay (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to state the same issue. Someone fix that, please. 189.170.99.76 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Gold Certification

As far as I have seen from the admittedly small amount of research i've been doing, the album has sold around 130k mark rather than over a million, as the apparent gold certification would suggest. I am replacing the 'gold' sales figures with referenced information, unless someone can prove otherwise.--SUFC Boy 13:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]