Talk:Meat Is Murder

English Version

The English version of this album originally came out with four pictures. Not one as is stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.175.51 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Title

Is there a reason why this page is titled "Meat Is Murder", rather than "Meat is Murder", which would be more MOS compliant? Most third party sources use a lower case i in the middle: any reason why we are not? - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Production disappointment on their first album

It says that had a disappointing production on their first album. Does anyone know where this comes from? Interesting but seems like it needs a source. Tactical Fiend (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Live Aid critic by Moz

Is it related and / or relevant to the Album? 2806:261:481:81BD:3889:4C87:7E33:18D5 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is for the the music genres that best describe the album. It should include what is widely agreed by the preponderance of sources. It's not for the views of one journalist. The presence of Rusholme Ruffians does not make this a rockabilly record, just as the inclusion of D'yer Mak'er does not render Houses of the Holy a reggae album. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meat Is Murder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 23:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ligaturama (talk · contribs) 11:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Picking this up after Strangeways sailed through. Per WP:GAN/I#R3 I may make trivial uncontroversial changes as I read through (spelling/grammar etc.) but will bring anything else here for discussion.

Quick fail criteria

All good

Source spot checks

I'll check some of the article's text against the listed references. Numbers are taken from the latest version at time of writing.

1: N The source says Street wasn't involved in "William, It Was Really Nothing": "the next single they did was ‘William It Was Really Nothing’, and they didn’t use me". It also doesn't substantiate the claim that "the band continued to generate both critical attention and controversy"; this is a general point that would be better put directly before the next paragraph, which is about the "Suffer Little Children" controversy and Hatful.

Added more refs

Y

2: N Sources don't say that Morrissey met victims' families. I also don't think the passionsjustlikemine.com source verifies anything or is reliable.

Removed claim and replaced ref

4: N Unreliable source

Replaced

Y

6: NYY Regarding "Following the critical success of The Smiths, the band approached their second album without the difficulties", I don't think Goddard says that the Smiths experienced difficulties making their first album and avoided these this time; instead he's saying that in general second albums are more difficult to produce than first albums, and that the Smiths didn't experience this.

I tried rephrasing this to capture Goddard's meaning.

Y

10: YYY

15: YYY

21: Y but duplicated by 23

22: ? Doesn't usefully verify anything

Removed

23: Y

30: YY

35: YY

42: Y

54: Y

62: Y

GA review

Last updated: 00:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC) by DYKUpdateBot

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

1A

• Under "Background" it would be good to have a short clause explaining what the intent of "Suffer Little Children" actually was, after saying "Morrissey clarified the song's intent"

Done

• "Composition" incorporates things that may belong better under "Reception", such as "Douglas Wolk noted that Morrissey is "often painfully out of tune" on weaker tracks." and "Mark Lindores described its lyrics "as eloquent as ever" (although the thematic range point probably still belongs here).

Done

• It seems a bit strange to have a section called "Composition" as well as "Writing and recording", I suggest renaming "Composition" to "Musical style" like in the Strangeways article.

Done

2B

• Just waiting for the comments in the spot check above to be resolved.

Other notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro talk 18:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an album called Meat Is Murder topped the UK Albums Chart in 1985?
  • ALT1: ... that the lead singer of Meat Is Murder was rewarded with a bag of biscuits for topping the UK Albums Chart?
  • ALT2: ... that Meat Is Murder has been accused of "cow-humping"?
  • ALT3: ... that one reviewer wrote that the tone of Meat Is Murder "begs for a belt in the chops"?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme state organ of power
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

Improved to Good Article status by Cathodography (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 312 past nominations.

Launchballer 14:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC).

• I shall review this. Note: I currently have (external) broadband issues, so this review may suffer interruptions. I shall be doing frequent temporary saves. Apologies. Storye book (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Congratulations on your GA, and the nice article. Good to see vegetarian-positive stuff on WP.

• Earwig finds some sources containing at least some of the same wording as the present article, but I strongly suspect that those sources are partial or full mirrors of previous forms of the same WP article. I suggest that you click on the above Earwig link, and check through all the sources listed there. Then please report back here, letting us know if you have had to rephrase anything.
• ALT sourcing: 0=y. online. 1=y offline. 2=y offline. 3=y online. All hook sources are OK.

So the only issue is that the apparent copyvio may or may not be a mirage due to mirror sites. You get that with GA's, where the previous versions have been around for a while. I look forward to seeing your positive response. Storye book (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

First three are them copying us, I reworded one sentence. Courtesy pings to @Cathodography and Ligaturama:.--Launchballer 19:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Launchballer. Your help is much appreciated. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)