Talk:Nine Inch Noize (album)

While this article credits the album to Nine Inch Noize, so far the official announcement and NIN website list the credit to Nine Inch Nails. It's listed as a main release on the website. The article may need to change its artist credit to Nine Inch Nails when we have more information. Femnesiac (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, it's credited on every streaming platform as both Nine Inch Nails, Boys Noize, and on the download stores that don't support multiple values in the artist field as "Nine Inch Nails & Boys Noize". NarcissismEverlasting (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What is the source for the note "She's Gone Away heavily samples Girl Crush"? --ZimZalaBim^talk 16:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Mariqueen Maandig is not credited on Tidal, but her vocals are clearly heard on some of the songs. I support including her as an uncredited, additional musician in the personnel section. I'll keep an eye out if there's an update, but the issue is there is no cite-able source that confirms this in a straightforward way. Femnesiac (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We need a WP:RS stating those are her uncredited vocals. --ZimZalaBim^talk 16:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I support an uncredited tag. Because it is clearly her. Also, numerous written music reviews bring her up by name specifically. Many of 'em can be used as a RS in the meantime. Xanarki (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. RedShellMomentum 02:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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:Nine Inch Noize (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 02:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RedShellMomentum (talk · contribs) 17:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing for WT:GARC#90. Will start later today. RedShellMomentum 17:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: So sorry for the one-week wait, I'll get started on this now. RedShellMomentum 00:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: So sorry for the other delay, my comments are below. RedShellMomentum 02:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• The album's chart performance might be worth mentioning in the lead and body.

Noted in lede. I feel like the visual charts in its own dedicated section like normal does exactly what prose would do, which I would view as redundant in this album's case. There's no interesting records or competitions or anything of note that would be particularly best expressed in prose elsewhere. BarntToust 02:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Made a small change here, and am now passing this. Great work! RedShellMomentum 02:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sputnikmusic review is from a user, rendering it unreliable. If you can justify its inclusion, then I'll consider...

Given the fact that we are not using this sputnik as an actual critical review, and the only content cited to them is WP:SKYBLUE kind of stuff (It takes a simple listen to "Girl Crush" by Boys Noize / compare it to "She's Gone Away" by NINoize; do the same with "Xpress Yourself" by Noize / "Parasite" by NINoize to see that it is true). I have no clue why other sources have not at least connected the dots between the first pair of songs, if there were other sources we'd definitely use them. I think this particular instance is an exceptional example, and for the pittance of content this usually disallowed source is supporting, I think there is justification. BarntToust 02:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Passes.
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.	There is a list of references, so this passes.
	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).	Majority reliable sources and zero unreliable sources, so this passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Source spot-check is all good, so this passes.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows 61.1% similarity, which is in the yellow, but it seems to be copied from Wikipedia, so I'll let this pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Passes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see 100% neutral wording, so this passes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Page history shows no recent edit wars, so this passes.
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.	Only image is the album cover, and it's tagged properly, so this passes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Album cover is obviously relevant to the topic with a suitable caption, so this passes.
	7. Overall assessment.	All good, just a few comments above.

Close

Source spot-check

This table lists 2 random passages from throughout the article (5.6% of 36 total passages). These passages contain 2 inline citations (4.3% of 46 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Reference #, Letter ...

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The record was first announced on April 8 via a billboard advertisement on the way to Coachella in Indio, California.
3	d	consequence.net	web.archive.org
while Murray wrote the "seductive duet ... sizzles with scarcely pent-up sexuality",
11	d	clashmusic.com	web.archive.org

Close

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.

• ... that composing film scores together inspired Nine Inch Nails and Boys Noize to produce a collaborative live and studio remix album?

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pépé Bradock

BarntToust 05:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC).

• In my opinion, it should say "collaborative album with studio, live, and remixed elements" or something similar, as the current piece leaves out that the majority of the material was newly recorded in a studio (regardless if someone likes or dislikes it, its status as a collaborative studio/live/remix album is a notable example of being outside the norm). Xanarki (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Xanarki: changed the wording now. have to be mindful to be terse in wording, so that character count doesn't exceed. take a look and see if it is As Descriptive as You Need It to Be. BarntToust 17:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems legit to me - it adequately covers the odd hybrid status of the album itself. Thnx! Xanarki (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Xanarki: agreed, alright! Now, does this mean this nom is ready for your {{subst:DYKtick}}? Thank you again. BarntToust 04:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no issues moving forward ! Xanarki (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

it doesn't look like a full review against the DYK criteria was done here, so marking for full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'll take on a full review here. Leafy46 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - WP:EXPLICITGENRE violation. See below.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Not really? I don't think it's particularly odd that two artists who have worked together in the past would decide to collaborate again.

Overall: Earwig gives 13.8% similarity, which is fine. One issue is that the genre included in the infobox fails WP:EXPLICITGENRE; the exact wording from the source says that the band's sound "marr[ies] Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' onyx post-punk and industrial techno with Boys Noize's sleek, sweaty electroclash", which is not the same as saying that the album as a whole is industrial techno. This should be resolved. In addition, I just don't find this hook to be particularly compelling? As it stands, it is basically just saying "These two artists who collaborated before decided to collaborate again", which leaves a lot to be desired imo. It's also worth noting that the article *technically* doesn't make this leap of logic. It says that composing film scores inspired the two to perform live together, but not that it inspired the creation of this specific album. Maybe it could mention how the album followed their Coachella collaboration, or maybe there's just a different way this can be phrased to make this more unique? Let me know what you think. Leafy46 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: Changed genre to electronic rock as per AllMusic and Pitchfork classifications.

I think maybe

"...that Nine Inch Nails and Boys Noize performed a collaborative live and studio remix album at Coachella 2026?"

is a good hook from there, but let me know. BarntToust 22:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Both AllMusic and Pitchfork don't work here. "Electronic" and "Rock" separately can't be combined to "Electronic Rock" per EXPLICITGENRE, and anyways AllMusic's genres shouldn't be used per WP:ALLMUSIC. Should be an easy enough fix to separate them, though. Also note the new cite error at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the new hook, I definitely like it a lot better. I think there's an interesting angle it could take along the lines of "they released their debut album less than a week after their first live performance together at Coachella, and the album happened to match the Coachella setlist", but that's not currently in the article. Leafy46 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Have now sourced both and also the industrial genre to Metacritic. This one album is tricky, genre-blending albums like this. Let me know. BarntToust 22:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm happy with the article itself. As for the hook, it needs a source, since the article states "The album's structure follows the setlist of Nine Inch Noize's Coachella 2026 performance" but this doesn't mean that the album is one-to-one with the live performance. That, or the hook needs to be slightly reworded. Leafy46 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: The Consequence source to that states that "The 12-song tracklist is structured in the same order as Nine Inch Noize’s thrilling weekend one Coachella setlist", so it is indeed one to one. That I used the word "follows" to describe the relation between setlists, I do not exactly understand how that implies that the setlist for Coachella and the album deviates anywhere. That would have to be explicitly noted if it did, and it does not. If the semantics bother you, I suggest that you can edit the wording to your taste, because the semantics don't really confuse me. BarntToust 01:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the new angle, just chiming in with some concerns. The one I have is that the hook would require the reader to know who either NIN and Boys Noize are. Granted, both are well-known artists, so that may not be as much of an issue, but I'm not really sure how the hook solves the "two artists who have collaborated before collaborated again" concern that was raised earlier in the review. Do you think a different angle is possible here that isn't about it being a collaboration? Either that, or the suggestion Leafy46 made regarding "less than a week later", but its interest might depend on when the album was recorded, if it was planned all along or if it was a sudden thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well here's the thing. The new hook, just to recap, "...that Nine Inch Nails and Boys Noize performed a collaborative live and studio remix album at Coachella 2026?", does not mention anything about their past collaborations so I don't exactly understand your one point, Narutolovehinata5. The objects of this hook are that they did *a genre bending album* at one of *the premiere stages for live performances*, so I do not understand how the meat and taters of this new hook would hinge at any point on the readers knowing either the band and the DJ beforehand. Not many studio albums that anybody has listened to or is aware of consist of being live studio and remix albums all at once, and I feel like most people are aware beforehand of the notability of the Coachella festival. I hope this provides some clarification. BarntToust 00:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: I mean to say that just a hook about two artists collaborating at all doesn't usually sound interesting by itself unless there is something particularly unusual about said collaboration. "Not many studio albums that anybody has listened to or is aware of consist of being live studio and remix albums all at once" might also fall under specialist knowledge, and ideally we want hooks to appeal to those who read a hook "cold". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you even talking about regarding this might needing to require "specialist knowledge" for a layperson to understand? I am profoundly confused, Narutolovehinata5. That you do not see an album—in a state of complex musical classification like this—very often just shows that the album's state-of-being is more novel and interesting in its own right, not that it is somehow so niche that it requires some deep-level conceptual understanding to make any sense of.

Most people are gonna know what a live album is, most people are familiar with the concept of remixing a song (and that you can make an album out of this as well), and I feel like people see the term "studio album" at enough Wikipedia pages to understand what that is as well. The fact that they have crammed these classifications for the state of being of an album—which are categories that you would not expect to somehow work together—to the point of a musical identity crisis is indeed "particularly unusual" and is exactly the sort of thing that is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing" by the casual reader. I honestly do not understand or follow any of your points you're making about this. BarntToust 00:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Most people know what an album is, yes. However, the nuances between live albums, remix albums, studio albums, etc. are a bit more specialist than that. Even when people know what they are, they may not necessarily get that it is rare for those kinds to get mixed, or at least it's not something that comes to mind. It feels like the nuance will just be lost on the average reader. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel the same way regarding what a reader would tend to find interesting or not. I feel like most readers would expect a live album to be recorded live and that is that. I feel like most readers would expect a studio album to be recorded in a studio and that is that. I feel like most readers would expect a remix album to be remixes and that is that. I feel like most readers would expect an album to fall within conventions of identity, and that this is an unconventionally-classified album is indeed an unusual thing that readers would consider unusual. This is throwing together a lot of different classifications that I feel like would be unusual to be thrown all together. I feel like readers would understand that this is usually not the way albums are made. The second part of this hook is that something as unconventional as this album got the kind of air time that Coachella brings, and I feel like it's a one-two punch that works effectively. If the hook was solely pointing out that it is a confusingly classified album, then yeah, I would probably reject this as having no substance. But the second part also does work.

I'm not going to pretend that this album is as interesting as something like, say a porn star starting his career because of 9/11, because this is a pretty mundane encyclopedic subject quite frankly, and it's one of the least interesting ones I've worked on. I honestly don't know what else I could do to produce an interesting hook with the encyclopedic information on hand. If you've got any more suggestions then please by all means levy them. BarntToust 01:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DYK isn't mandatory for articles. If an article just doesn't have anything usable or interesting, it's okay not to nominate it for DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I am going to recuse myself as the reviewer here. I'd be lying if I said that you telling me to "just do it" above didn't offend me, especially given that we are all volunteers here and this is in the end *your* nomination and not mine. But if you really insist on me doing this myself, then fine. I would suggest going with a hook along the following lines: "ALT2: ...that Nine Inch Noize's self-titled debut album was released one week after the group's first live performance together?" (source).

It circumvents the original hook's DYKINT issue since, imo, it's reasonably intriguing to a person without any knowledge of the bands or how albums are usually structured; one week from live debut to debut album is short for any artist. The wording is technically correct (since it is the group's first live performance as Nine Inch Noize instead of as two separate acts), and it doesn't need to be mentioned in the hook that the group is not exactly "up and coming" as the hook may initially appear to a front page reader. It should not be hard to incorporate the fact that Coachella was the group's debut as Nine Inch Noize; you must excuse me for my sheer, unabashed laziness here for not just doing it myself. Even if this hook is not ultimately used, I don't feel comfortable supporting or rejecting any hook related to this article. I wish you well with this nomination. Leafy46 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: I'm okay with ALT2 if it's the only option left, but I also wonder if there are other angles still worth exploring. Like, if there are angles that are simply not just about the album being a collaboration, like an unusual fact about the album itself. I can approve ALT2 if those don't exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)