Talk:This Is PiL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:This is PiL)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

June 2012: Review Scores[edit]

~ Woovee (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding negative reviews from reputable sources is indispensable : indeed, the critical reception is balanced. It is only (62/100) on Metacritic. see here
Henceforward, I consider that Paste magazine's review is notable along with The Independent : two negative reviews are enough here.
Note that Metacritic considers Paste Magazine as one of the most important magazines/sites for reviews. Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" lists Paste Magazine in the best Magazines along with NME and Mojo : see here the list of the best "Music magazines" for Metacritic here.
At the opposite, Consequence of Sound doesn't appear on Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" which means that Consequence of Sound is not considered as important by journalists
For the 5th time, this isn't a fan site. All album wiki articles have a critical reception field that deals with both pos.+neg. reviews.
here's my vote for the Review Scores : YES for Paste Magazine.
To me, the list of ten reviews must include : Allmusic, Drowned In Sound, The Guardian, The Independent, Mojo, NME, Paste, Pitchfork Media, Slant and Spin. These ten reviews reflect all the diversity of opinions in a objective way and equitably, respecting what critic reviews said about the album
Woovee (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Your Third Opinion request has been removed because the Third Opinion project, like all forms of content dispute resolution, requires that the matter be discussed here on the talk page before requesting dispute resolution. If the other editor in the dispute will not respond, make a request for comments using the procedure set out in footnote 1 of the RFC page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan has given you incorrect advice. The footnote has been removed and if the other editor does not respond but since you have put arguments forth, you can change the article per the reasoning you had given.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The barely notable "musicOMH" also should be removed in the text as it is not mentionned in the list of the best "Music magazines" for Metacritic : see here.
As Paste magazine is famous, an excerpt of its negative review must appear in the article where as it is constantly erased by Longlivepunk. Woovee (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion pertaining to this RFC has been copied from here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This might be useful.

[version] is the right one. Obviously, per WP:NPOV articles about albums should not be sanitised by excluding mention of negative or lukewarm reviews. There is no real guidance about how to pick publications for the review table, beyond using reliable sources and ensuring balance, so there's no reason why the exact list of publications given above would need to be stuck to, if there's a good reason to change it.

Former IP, You share my point of view. This is the one I want to let online. I let "Paste" and "The Independent" appearing in the scores : I put excerpts of both reviews in the article. I erased the barely notable MusicOMH review that is garlands in the text.
Woovee (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LLPR's most recent edits seem to have not removed the bad reviews, but changed the order. Perhaps this is a dispute that is already over (?). Formerip (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Woovee, regarding what you wrote above about an album article needing at least two critical reviews. That's not right. Some albums may have won near-universal praise and that can then be reflected in the table. We need to achieve a fair reflection of reality, not seek out bad reviews for the sake of it. Formerip (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your point of view because you're for my version as you just wrote previously. Two negative reviews, three... it is normal to put them when the critical reception is balanced (65/100). It is not 80/100 ! : so, there's no universal praise in this case ! "Fair reflection of reality", you wrote: I'm for it. This is what I said.
Woovee (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Minor unclear thing there, I think. FormerIP agrees that negative reviews should be included in this case. They're just saying that we don't need to go looking for them in every case, because there are some where reception is much more positive. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The article already goes beyond what is required with this 'Track-by-track commentary by John Lydon (2012)' and that does not need to be on Wiki, I'd chop it out and put it as a ref or external link detailing the songs themselves rather then due the entire album after the 'critical response section'. As for the negative reviews, Metacritic is not some bastion of fairness. The reviews themselves from notable resources should stay and be added to the table. For positive and negative (and neutral) I'd pick most recognized names with the best comment to reflect their position on the album. One each, Rolling Stone is a good choice to include. I'd take Paste's as the negative comment, its a lot better then the Independents for describing why they didn't like it. As for the positives, I'd cut it down to two or one, clearly too many positives are on here which offer little input and come across as a wall o text. Just to be clear this is for the comments, not the review box scores, those scores should remain good or bad as long as the source is recognized and reputable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with those suggestions, but I'd point out that the guidance sets a maximum of ten reviews, so if editors decide they want to take full advantage of that then they can. I agree with your point about Metacritic, but unfortunately the guidance actually suggests using it. ETA: I missed your comment "this is for the comments, not the review box scores", so that changes things. Apologies. Formerip (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri's suggestion to chop the 'Track-by-track commentary by John Lydon (2012)' out is relevant to me. Adding this in 'external link' would be a good option as all these sources are available online. I note that Formerip also finds this idea interesting.
For the 'review box scores', I see that three of us agree to keep Paste and The Independent for the negatives. So, let's stick to this selection of ten reviews for the box.
Concerning the 'comments', I also agree with Chris. There's no need to put plenty of positives. At the moment, there are six positives : so, one could reduce this number to two (let's keep The Guardian and Mojo). Plus one neutral (Pitchfork seems to me better than Rolling Stone) and one negative (Paste's). Woovee (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Updated : changes added to the article due to the consensus reached by ChrisGualtieri, Formerip, and Woovee. Woovee (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)