User:Kiac/Review Sites

Page for listing questionable album review sites with articles on Wikipedia, so they can be investigated and possibly added to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT (as professional or unprofessional).

Under review

StrangeGlue

As much as their Contact page says there are 9 contributors/staff, I have only ever seen a single writer for all reviews, Aidan Williamson. A Google search does not appear to indicate any other credentials in his name.
No wiki page
One reference to a quote from the site here, but I've always seen the writer of that article, Altsounds, as of a similar ilk, they also have no Wiki page.
See this page for a list of IPs and accounts that have spammed the site onto Wikipedia (as many as possible of these links have been removed).

and reception section

Change the guidelines on what makes a reliable review source.

Having a Wikipedia article is a good guide as to whether a site will be considered reliable for usage. However, this is simply a rule of thumb.
A site/publication must have had some sort of third-party coverage, or the (staff or publication) have credentials in the relevant field (author, previously worked for reliable publications, can be proven to have an influence or effect on things surrounding the topic at hand).

Criteria for usage

Major newspapers and other publications (The New York Times, The Guardian) are considered reliable; especially if there is evidence of the writer or publication having credentials in the music industry. Use of sources such as these is encouraged, but they should be used in conjunction (or alongside) with other mediums such as music magazines.
Significance to subject (genre, demography, etc.)
Quality of actual review (satirical pieces are an instant no)
Common Sense

Metacritic is a great place to start when searching for professional reviews. Generally reliable sources and provides scores and quotes.

Has established credibility through notable sources using their work as a reference.

Non-professional reviews too common

They are rabid, they are flowing in abundance and their notoriety is coming straight from this very website!

HEY look, Strange Glue (links to: "Strange Glue" is a song by Welsh rock group Catatonia.) is used on this article, so when my favourite album comes out next month, I'm gonna add their review (if it's positive) to that also! Then if it's removed for being amatuer, unreliable, unprofessional and an individually run website with one reviewer - then I'll add it again and again and again and again, claim that the editor is bias and wrong, then make sock puppets so they don't know it's only me!

So, that's how it goes down, and I'm seeing too little resistance. We need to add the likes of Strange Glue, Hard Rock Haven, Punktastic, all commonly used blogs like The Tune and The Album Project, any of those little metal sites run by college kids, and anything else which does not have any professional value, to the Non-professional list. We need a basis to stop this, these people are not going to arrive on this talk page and be able to argue the relevance of these sites' reviews, because there is no relevance, they are done by amatuer, average, unqualified, fans.

Even if they could be proven as an reliable source somehow (think AbsolutePunk.net), are they at all justifiable to be used in the same list, or instead, of the likes of Rolling Stone or Billboard? No, they're not. The publications are usually just unknown websites, or completely irrelevant online men's magazines, they have absolutely no merit to be used alongside online and print publications which have credentials and respect in the center of the music industry.

Wikipedia has provided a basis for these unknowns; blatent, shameless self-advertising. They've become recognisable because people have seen them here, and with very little or no recognition from anywhere but here, they have made a name for themselves. This is not how things should work, we should not be used. Please help me crack down on this.

The first line of the Professional reviews section needs to be re-written also. Even our discussions here about Piero Scaruffi ignore any relevance of his notability (even though the line states that we may include reviews by "professional music journalists" in general, no other constraints like the fact that it may cause Undue weight, ).

User talk:67.63.104.143
I get a message on my talk page in response to removing Reviewrinserepeat from an article. The user says, "Who are you to say what is professional and what is not? RRR is NOT a personal blog, so it falls within the rules.". Automatically, he insists that if it is not a blog, then it is okay and thus professional. Nevertheless, the site appears to be borderline blog, but do realise my reasoning said was for it being "unprofessional", no mention of blog. This is a problem, we need to state what is not professional. This statement seems to summarise the general view perfectly, they attack the intervening editor because we as regulars have no real backup having never provided the guidelines/policies sufficiently enough. We need to improve the specifics, create a redirect link (WP:ALBREV) and hit them in the face with it.