Talk:Book of Lies (album)

Professional review?

From the article's Revision history there has been an edit war since 19:22, 17 November 2008 when User:124.171.60.153 (talk) added a Review link to the infobox. It was deleted by User:Dan arndt (talk | contribs ) with an edit summary: non-professional review. Subsequently the review was returned by User:203.158.52.39, User:124.168.129.72, User:124.170.169.183, User:124.170.125.145 and each time was reverted by Dan arndt. Thereafter further inclusions and deletions occurred with edit summaries supplying the main dialogue between various editors. Currently the article has a protection to prevent anonymous reverting until 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

The article currently includes the contentious review link. To provide background on this dispute I will categorise the edit summaries provided as either Keep or Delete:

Keep	Delete
Undid revision 253091498 by Dan arndt (talk)how is this not a professional review?	It's a blog site! just one individual's opinion
Undid revision 253496151 no, its a music news and reviews site for which a number of people write for. theres no way you can say that can't be there and any of the others can	Undid revision 253527086 by 124.170.169.183 (talk) non-professional review (individual opinion)
Undid revision 254120422 (talk)just because you say so doesn't make it true. explain how this is a personal opinion while the others aren't	<no edit summary supplied>
Undid revision 254887157 by 220.235.41.232 (talk)	<no edit summary supplied>
Undid revision 255159378 by 202.71.164.41 (talk)undo vandalism	<no edit summary supplied>
Undid revision 255168207 by 202.71.164.41 (talk)	<no edit summary supplied>
Undid revision 256321351 by 220.235.39.36 (talk) {{subst:uw-delete3}}	removed non-professional reviews in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (ie Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists)
Undid revision 256936641You have an incorrect intepretation on what constitutes a non-professional site. The ones listed allow anyone to sign up and write about it. PoA does not.	Undid revision 257022016 by 124.168.144.75 (talk) polaro.com is non-professional review
Undid revision 257022213 by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)and that website has what to do with that?	Undid revision 257113213 by 124.168.144.75 still doesn't meet the standards of a professional review refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums
Undid revision 257164543 there is nothing in there that disqualifies it from being a professional review.	Deleted review as the website has no editorial review and is essentially a personal blog as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums
Undid revision 257236674 Wikiproject albums article says nothing about requiring editorial reviews. P of A is clearly not a blog site, contains a number of writers who write only of music	As previously indicated there is no editorial review (paid or volunteer) of this website so essentially it is just a blog site and does not constitute a professional review - have reported as edit war
Undid revision 257241494 As previously indicated wikiproject article does not require editorial review and as previously indicated multiple times it is not a blog site

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point, 19:29, 11 December 2008, William M. Connolley (talk | contribs ) blocked the article from further anonymous reverting with: m (Protected Book of Lies (album): anon rv'ing ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC))))

Towards a resolution

Although not certain, it appears that most, if not all, of the Keep edit summaries are from anonymous editor(s) with few edits other than this article. Some of the Delete with no edit summaries supplied were also from anonymous editor(s). The main registered editor in favour of Delete is Dan arndt.

The contention revolves around what constitutes a Professional review. With Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums providing:

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM#Review sites.

And later:

When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view.

I favour the Delete option because:

• It is not a professional review
  • No editorial or writing staff are identified. The author of the particular 'review' is given as Jonny who describes himself as: "Jonny rides a bad ass BMX, was the chief ghost writer on Wu-Tang Clan's 36 Chambers and invented Blu Tak."Jonny.
• It is not a notable source
  • Not on WP:ALBUM#Review sites
• It is not written in a neutral point of view
  • It contains phrases such as: " to recognise shit disguised as 'music' [...] Burford comes across as more of a dickhead than ever [...] full to the brim of rock cliches and vomit-inducing "pre-made hits" [...] This is pure 400% uncreative crap"Jonny's review of Book of Lies.

If no further discussion is supplied, I propose deleting the link.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a harsh review, but is it any worse than most pitchfork reviews? If their review for Shine On is considered professional than pretty much anything can be. Plus what seems to constitute a non professional review on the guidelines page seems to exist so people don't post reviews where all that is required is a valid email account to create an account and start writing. Given that this site has a few writers, it must be assumed that the general consensus of the album was that its terrible Cereal killer (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)