Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song)

Donnelly review

@SNUGGUMS: will you please reconsider this edit? One, this is a subjective review, for which the reliability standards are relaxed; two, Matthew Scott Donnelly is an established writer, having penned pieces for MTV and New York Magazine. (Your edit summary explaining the removal, BTW, presents the opinion of one person from four years ago!) ~~Meantime, I'll try to find a better source for the other instance~~ (done). TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 04:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PopCrush has been repeatedly rejected as a dubious source, and the thread I linked was simply the first thing that came to mind talking about it not being good enough to use in articles. There is also a general consensus that only reviews from reliable sources should be included within articles. The site I'm afraid hasn't since gotten any better overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to point me to such a consensus? I've had GAs pass with reviews from "dubious" sources when the writer's credentials pass muster. I argue that Donnelly's credentials override any issues with the website. Thanks. —ATS 🖖 Talk 05:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Critical reception and WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which apply to essentially all music articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, SNUGGUMS. I believe they support my position—and the second link cites, again, only the one editor's opinion that PopCrush is unreliable—as the emphasis has been placed on "professional music journalists", and Donnelly is clearly thus established. Should we go to the community on this one? —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person from that thread is far from the only person who doesn't find it up to snuff. Just saying. It would be much better to use something from a different publication that author has worked for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem; it isn't thus published, at least as of this edit. I appreciate your input.

—ATS 🖖 Talk 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With utmost respect and admiration for Snuggums, I'm going to restore the data per WP:SPS. While PopCrush is not a "self-published source", I believe we can by extension agree that any "expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis ours). Matthew Scott Donnelly has been published many dozens of times by MTV News and New York Magazine, and I assert that it is improper—not merely unfair—to punish the author for no reason other than the site of publication. —ATS 🖖 Talk 21:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic ballad as a genre

Ballad is not a music genre, ballad is a style. So, why it is labelled as its genre? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be damned ... for years I thought it was a genre, but a search confirms your assertion. Thanks for the heads-up, Tbhotch. —ATS 🖖 Talk 21:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]