Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Review source: Idolator[edit]

Used prominently on music good articles, Idolator is a music "blog" (more in the style of a news blog) which features reviews of songs and albums, coverage on music releases and pop artists' other ventures; gossip and tabloid-y content has been posted in the past but there's almost no trace of it now. For some reason, it is almost always removed from WP:FAs though no signs of non-reliability have been given.

  • This website was used for a Metacritic post where publications' top 10 lists of 2012 albums were rounded up to give a definitive top 10 with the most mentioned albums in those publications' lists. (here)

I also opened a discussion about the source in WP:RSN which has been archived and users who commented on it agreed that it was reliable. ([ here]) This discussion is to hopefully add it to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and thus determine its reliability (or not). — prism 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I believe Idolator can be listed as a reliable source for albums/singles. Their reliability, original content and factual accuracy passes them as reliable source. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
They may have been gossip-y in the past, but have upped their game since. Definitely worthy of being added on the "recommended" list for WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 14:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I find Idolator useful since it covers a lot of things. As for its reviews, I find them okay although at times I find them to be a bit biased, but that's probably just me. Okay from my side. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, reviews are supposed to be biased, that's why they are reviews.--¿3family6 contribs 16:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
From the evidence presented here, I'd agree that it passes RS and support adding it to our list. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX says above that they used to be "gossip-y"; should we add a restriction of a date/year for information (like we do for Metal Storm, "Do not use...staff reviews from before 2009")? (I know nothing of this site, so I'll leave it up to others to decide if this is necessary, and if so, to what year/date). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per the clearly-established credibility presented by the nominator. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wasn't there a discussion previously on the use of Idolator? livelikemusic my talk page! 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If any restrictions, I would say "do not use for celebrity dating reports" since in the past the gossip I saw pertained to that. Seeing to it that the site is mainly used for music reviews, shouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage (album)[edit]

There is edit warring and genre conversation going on at Garbage (album) talk page. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AlreadyHeard.com[edit]

Already Heard is a website that reports on band activity, to me personally It looks pretty decent, it has a load of staff including writers and photographers and has a lot of coverage, for example I am currently writing a draft for an upcoming Mallory Knox album and one of the points is referenced by one of the bands Facebook posts which I want to replace, I want to use this article as the reference:[1]
I personally believe this looks pretty good however as usual I like to check with others in case it is in fact regarded unreliable. Please share your opinions, thank you. SilentDan297 talk 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the editor's LinkedIn profile, it seems he started the site basically as a fan blog... the question is whether it has now developed into a reliable music website. I'm finding it hard to find proof that any of the staff are full-time paid writers (the editor himself seems to only work there on a part-time basis in between working at a ticketing agency) and don't just contribute for the love of the genre. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to find out? It seems reliable to me but then again that could just be me, I still have trouble's identifying reliable sources as it seems to be different from person to person, pretty much why I consult the tables on this article. SilentDan297 talk 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since when do the writers have to be "full-time paid writers?" Volunteer staff is OK too. The better question is, is there editorial oversight, and the source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?--¿3family6 contribs 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, what I meant was ALL the staff appear to be volunteers, including the founder and editor – is that still allowable under Wikipedia rules? Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think so, if it is professionally quality material.--¿3family6 contribs 23:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you say this website is? And should it be added to the table of online reliable sources? SilentDan297 talk 23:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

About.com[edit]

Should this even be listed as a source to avoid? Even though the site has non-professional reviewers, it does also have professional reviewers (like Tim Grierson, who is from Blender and Revolver, and Chad Bowar, who is from Loudwire), just like Sputnikmusic. If it is to stay in the sources to avoid list, it should also be in the recommended sources list for clarification, just like Sputnikmusic. Also, the link in mentioned in the list is to a thread where someone clearly says that opinions on the site's reliability has been mixed, judging on past discussions, so there hasn't even been a consensus that it's never reliable. I've seen people removing About.com from articles lately, saying it's not reliable and stuff (regardless of the author), so I thought of bringing this to discussion. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel About.com's music reviews are pretty nice and well made, for example this review (includes a line "while 'Secret' drops in a refrain from Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam with Full Force's 'I Wonder If I Take You Home' that conducts a dance-pop dialogue across almost 20 years," which particularly impressed me). The writer of this review, Jason Shawhan, is a member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association and has contributed to The Observer (according to Indiewire - here). For release dates etc. I might say that About.com is not the best go-to website. However, I don't think it should be listed as a source to avoid, especially for musical articles. Release dates, factual stuff - No; Reviews and critical opinions - Yes. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, for a while, I assumed About.com was always reliable, in fact, until I seen people arguing otherwise, and pointed out that it also has non-professional reviewers. Would you say it should be removed from the list altogether, or have a better clarification? Kokoro20 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist - WP:VG has discussed it 14 times and still not come to a conclusion on it. It should be "situational" at at best, due to the large variety of writers they have, experienced and not. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we have a situational section here too, for sites like About.com and Sputnikmusic? Kokoro20 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
At the Christian Music project we have a number that require care. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. However, the staff reviews for most of the sources there are very clearly marked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Same with WPVG. It's probably a good idea, they're not all cut and dry. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A frequent name I've seen from About.com is Bill Lamb. As Adabow (talk · contribs) will tell you, Lamb is not a professional music critic. I'm generally skeptical of the site even outside of reviews, as much of its content is user-generated and/or unprofessional. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It may be appropriate to compile a list of reliable About.com writers. Mark Edward Nero is another. Adabow (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. So far, we have Tim Grierson, Chad Bowar and Mark Edward Nero as reliable authors. Who else? We should probably get a consensus about each common author (or at least ones who are disputed, like Bill Lamb) for music articles to try and put the debates for About.com's reliabillity to rest, at least when it comes to the music articles here. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Another reliable critic, like I mentioned earlier, is Jason Shawhan. I think we should prepare a table of the music critics of the site and then judge who all are reliable. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Table of critics[edit]

I have made this test table. Feel free to improve it. Funny that when I browsed through the reviews I was unable to find reviews by Shawhan etc. Kindly add any reviewer I missed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Critic Genre Reliable? Reasoning
Steve Peake 80s music No Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work.
Melissa Bobbitt 90s rock Yes Has written for Alternative Press and PopMatters (here)
Anthony Carew Alternative music Yes Wrote for Rolling Stone, The Age (here), and The Sydney Morning Herald (here)
Reverend Keith A. Gordon Blues Yes Has written for AllMusic (here) and has also written a book The Other Side of Nashville
Warren Truitt Children's music No Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work.
Kim Jones Christian music/gospel Yes Writes for Music Times (here)
Dave White Classic rock No Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work.
Aaron M. Green Classical No Has completed the "NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism" according to About.com bio. However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found.
Robert Silva Country Yes Has written for AMC.com (here) and All Media Guide according to résumé (here)
Ben Norman Dance/Electronic No Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work.
Jason Shawhan Dance/Electronic No Member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association and has contributed to The Observer (here), but no experience in music criticism
Kim Ruehl Folk Yes Writer for No Depression (here). Has worked for Billboard (here) and Yes! (here).
Chad Bowar Heavy metal Yes Wrote for Loudwire. (here)
Michael Verity Jazz Yes Has written reviews for Relix (here) and American Songwriter, albeit for genres other than jazz. (here)
Carlos Quintana Latin No Was "actively involved in the elaboration of the Latin music database for the Yahoo! Music site" according to About.com bio. An article he has written for About.com has been used by the site of the Institute of Latin America Studies at Anhui University (here). However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found.
Robert Fontenot Oldies Yes Contributes to OffBeat (here). Has also worked for AOL and USA Today, according to About.com bio.
Ryan Cooper Punk No About.com bio claims his work has appeared in Alternative Press. Unable to confirm this through any other source.
Ken Simmons R&B/Soul No Has experience in R&B radio but not in critiquing
Henry Adaso Hip-hop/Rap Yes Written for Vibe, LA Weekly and XXL, Houston Press (here), cited by MTV. Also founded and is currently editor-in-chief of The Rap Up.
Tim Grierson Rock Yes Wrote for Blender (here and Rolling Stone (here).
Chris Caggiano Theatre Yes Teaches courses in musical-theater history, arts criticism and the neuroscience of music at the Boston Conservatory, where he is a full-time faculty member. (yes)
Bill Lamb Pop No Only other experience is as DJ for a college radio station
Megan Romer World Yes Written for No Depression (here). Marketing director of Finger Lakes GrassRoots Festival of Music and Dance (here)
Mark Edward Nero R&B Yes Wrote a weekly column for The San Diego Union-Tribune (here). Work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News, according to About.com bio
Okay, I started up with a few. Anyone else? Kokoro20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we also have a reasoning for the reviewers who should not be considered reliable? Kokoro20 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course. And please include sources for supporting the claims. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
When the table is finished, how should we incorporate the list of authors to avoid? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the entire table, constituting of both the reliable and unreliable editors should form a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe we could just include a link to this thread under the "notes" part. Also, it looks the whole table is filled out now. Would everyone agree with how its filled out? Kokoro20 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about linking, since this thread will eventually be archived and a directed table excerpt is more accessible. Let's just copy paste this table there once @Adabow:, @SNUGGUMS:, and any editor interested and involved in this discussion approves this table. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
For those listed under "maybe", my only suggestion would be to get more definitive answers if possible. Otherwise, good to go. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping some other editor suggested what to do with the Maybe cells. I tried my best to find stuff about these "maybe" editors, but so fat nothing. I believe we will have to make our own judgement whether these particular editors are reliable, by analysing their reviews maybe. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So, should it be ready now? Kokoro20 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Not yet. The "maybe"s need to be sorted out first. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please take the initiative to do so? I am unable to. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The whole table should not be copied over, the link can easily be changed to its place in the archive, once this discussion is archived. I agree with Snuggums, we should not include "maybes", we should have a definitive yes or no. Also are there not much more writers than this? STATic message me! 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If the maybes cannot be classed as reliable or unreliable, then I would conservatively have them as unreliable. We can always have discussions to change their status. Same thing goes for any writers who are not currently listed; a discussion can be had to determine their reliability. Adabow (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay. I have changed the "Maybe(s)" to "No(s)." Also, if anyone finds a music editor missing from this table, kindly add them with a suitably sourced judgement regarding their reliability. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reasoning for the former "maybes" now be changed too? Kokoro20 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. I'll go ahead and put out a link to this thread at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Dummy[edit]

Could we add Dummy to a list of sources? Their about us section seems legit to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me, too. I remember Jockey Slut from back in the day, and Dummy was essentially started by those same guys. I think they can be classed as a WP:RS, though we ought to be cautious if they ever review stuff from their own Dummy Records label, as this would obviously not be an independent view. — sparklism hey! 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sparklism – Jockey Slut was a well-respected music magazine during dance music's 1990s heyday, and looking at Dummy's website I recognise at least one name among the contributors, Adam Harper, who has been published in The Fader, The Wire and Tiny Mix Tapes, as well as a book, Infinite Music. So I see no reason not to accept them as a source. Richard3120 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop hiding track lists[edit]

It seems standard now for editors to add bonus tracks as a hidden box on album articles, for example Exodus. I find it anoying and ugly, why hide the Sessions with Lee Perry, July / August 1977 tracks? It does also seem to contavene Scrolling lists and collapsible content: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." — 86.171.14.51 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about bonus tracks – I would imagine that in the case of the above album and various others, editors have done it to stop the track listing section becoming a very long list, due to the number of reissues. Personally I would be looking at ways to try and cut down the track listings and stop unnecessary repetition: for instance the first hidden box, "Exodus Remastered" just duplicates the original track listing above it... I'd be inclined to reorder everything and trying to make it easier to follow so you can see eactly what the difference is between the various reissues. Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about this at the infobox and it was decided that its not key information and so does not contravene COLLAPSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Walter, just for the sake of clarification and so that everyone else is aware of it, I assume you mean this discussion: Template talk:Track listing#Collapsibility Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree, but apparently there are times when track listings are better off collapsed (usually in an article about another subject, which includes a soundtrack section, such as video game articles). But for albums, I agree, there are very few cases where collapsing the track listings is a good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on singular bonus tracks, but very strongly in favor of continuing to collapse these alternate/re-release track listings where it's 99% the same track list and just an extra track tacked on, or a few songs rearranged in order. That sort of thing just takes up a lot of space and makes the track lusts look a lot longer/complicated than they really are. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Exodus I think it could be simplified to avoid repetion anyway – I agree with the original complaint, it's ridiculous to collapse the track listing halfway through a disc, as has been done with the Lee Perry sessions. I was going to reduce it down to something like this at the top of my sandbox – it's not perfect but it gets rid of all the repetition and nothing has been collapsed. Richard3120 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Swapping Loudwire for Metal Storm & Punknews.org[edit]

Hi. Wanted to propose adding Loudwire to the list of sources. Loudwire is a website which daily updates news on rock and heavy metal and I find it very useful for information on lesser known bands. It has professional editorial staff, and it looks like a high-standard source. It features numerous interviews and album reviews, and I considered it essential for albums of this genre. On the other hand, Metal Storm and Punknews are largely user-edited websites, and there are few posts that you'll find appropriate for album articles. I think their inclusion on the list can be misleading to editors less involved in album articles to a certain degree.--Retrohead (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments welcome[edit]

Hi WikiProject, I'm hoping to get some comments at Talk:List of double albums#"Can fit on one CD". A New Jersey-based IP with a history of disruptive edits, and a user account with a history of disruptive edits, (they are likely the same actor,) have been adding "Can fit on one CD" to this list of double albums. Frankly, I don't see the value of this, as it appears to be crufty, and is comprised entirely of original research, ("I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off.") and I was hoping to get some input from the community. I don't take their positions seriously since they have been disruptive, and I doubt they'll put together a coherent rebuttal, but I'm hoping to establish consensus one way or another, even if my instinct is wrong about the usefulness of the content. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum I've had to report the user and IP to ANI, so comments may not be necessary, unless you feel so inclined. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ratings issues[edit]

I was just taking a look at So Tonight That I Might See (I can't believe this is a stub) when I noticed that the link to the Rolling Stones rating was broken.[2] Of course, I popped that sucker into archive.org and got the old link.[3] However, should the archive link be used in the ratings, or is there a way to find it on the current site? I could be wrong, but has RS paywalled all their old archival articles? Any help is appreciated, as this could have an impact on many album articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Provide an inline citation, not a simple link. For an example see Beyoncé (album)#Critical reception. I'm not sure but I think RS is pretty quick at removing articles from its free website. Adabow (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, but that wasn't my question. This is an older article that hasn't been edited much, so it is using the older inline external link style that we used prior to using reflist generated links. In any case, that's not the issue under discussion. What I'm asking is, 1) do you know if older RS reviews have gone behind a paywall in the last several years? If so, should we be updating them with archive.org links or not? Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)