Talk:Here (Alicia Keys album)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Here (Alicia Keys album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170115170446/https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Alicia_Keys_HERE_Deluxe?id=Buyaoig6r363jr23gwpskupy6ki to https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Alicia_Keys_HERE_Deluxe?id=Buyaoig6r363jr23gwpskupy6ki

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Replacing Slant with AllMusic score

@Lapadite77:, you have no ground for reverting my replacement of Slant Magazine's score with AllMusic. I have no idea what you're on about here: ("ESSAY notes "keeping a neutral point of view"), ("All listed are notable"), ("worldwide overview over American focus"), ("no policy says AllMusic (or any one particular site) must be listed"). Nothing was said or suggested by me or my change, in regards to any of these confusing statements you made in your edit summary. Some (obvious) points:

• The ratings template guideline states: "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view."
• Both are American publications, but AllMusic is the more popular publication by a wide margin, according to Alexa's traffic rank: AllMusic is ranked 1,424 in the U.S. while Slant is ranked 17,903. In fact, Slant appears to be the least popular publication among those listed in the ratings box. Considering notability of the review source, AllMusic warrants inclusion over Slant.
• If we are to consider the averaged scores from either of the listed aggregate sites--AnyDecentMusic (a 74) or Metacritic (a 76, out of 100)--then the average with AllMusic's score in place of Slant's is no less an accurate reflection than with Slant. If you include AllMusic's score and assign each of the 10 listed a value out of 100, and average them out, you get: 50 + 67 + 83 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 65 + 70 + 91 = 746, divided by 10, for an average of 74.6, which is roughly the average of the two aggregate scores, 74 and 76. If Slant's score were included in the arithmetic, the average would bump up higher to 76.6, which is higher than either aggregate score.

In sum, my revision meets the relevant guidelines (MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template, WP:NPOV). If you revert it again, even after I have given this thorough explanation of a relatively minor change, I will open an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"You have no ground for reverting my replacement of Slant Magazine's score with AllMusic" - clearly stated in my edit summary: "ESSAY notes "keeping a neutral point of view", which is POLICY. All listed are notable, &, more importantly, maintain WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, considering the general reception & the general ratings box better represents worldwide overview over [an] American focus. AllMusic is included in prose, like all others; no policy says AllMusic (or any one particular site) must be listed in an optional ratings box".

• If you have "no idea what I'm on about" citing policy that you should know overrides any essay – WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional" (see also: WP:CONLIMITED) – an essay on an optional ratings box, an essay which itself reminds you to keep in mind said policy, then I suggest you reread policy, take into account previous discussions on limitations of aggregators, and not edit according to personal bias. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to disregard the policy of neutral point of view and due balance over to wanting an optional ratings box to read a particular way that doesn't serve neutrality and balance. You are focused on arguing over which source is "more notable" – which is neither here nor there as all are notable sources and neutrally reflect/summarize the overall reception of notable sources worldwide – to substitute your preferred site which unbalances the ratings box to read more negatively than overall reception is, and does not make it a neutral, balanced overview of the general international reception which is summarized in prose.
• Metacritic, ADM, any aggregator, are generally not arbitrators - and you've read this from others editors in at least one discussion before, including one in which I'd recently participated - especially when only 14 reviews were included by aggregator, and there are several other notable review sources available, in and outside the US, most of which are positive and would increase the scores if/when included, though again aggregate scores don't arbitrate. If you want numbers, with Slant Magazine, the average (and you know simple arithmetic mean is not how those aggregators calculate their scores) is 76.6 - representative of overall reception, as enumerated by aggregator's very limited selection & particular formulas, but, far more importantly, is representative of overall reception from notable sources in and outside the US. The distribution of ratings in the box reflects a balanced overview of international reception – taking into account number of notable sources in and out of the US and the general reception of the record, where it doesn't particularly skew too American or too positive, mixed or negative), and your need to replace one notable source for your preferred site to read how you want it gives undue weight/unbalances the overview - it is not then a neutral, representative overview of overall reception.
• Also, you removing reviews from notable sources like NME, Slant Magazine, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, The Observer, Consequence of Sound, does not speak to you having/employing any neutrality. Removing notable reviews you don't want, incredible. Need one remind you not to edit tendentiously. Of course, the unreasonable removable of notable content has been reinstated.

There's a thorough explanation from me; you can continue refusing to accept the implementation of policy over your interpretation of an ESSAY which for some reason you're trying to enforce for a site's rating, while tendentiously removing reviews from notable publications in prose. Need one suggest as well to not continue to reverting/replacing/removing NPOV policy-abiding content, leave the status quo and the onus is on you to seek consensus for your POV on an essay over policy. Lapadite (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution thread here. Lapadite (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet The album's reception isn't negative or mixed, it's generally positive, hence the inclusion of AllMusic's negative review is not WP:NPOV, and is undue weight, which is the point here. Also, this is under Dispute Resolution at WP:DRN so wait till discussion/dispute resolution is over or goes to the next step before editing the matter being discussed. Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The AllMusic review is a major review, so you cannot sweep it under because it has a lower score, a more negative take. And the AllMusic review is already described in prose in the article, so that should tell you something about how NPOV operates. The list of 10 reviews should all be major reviews, and they should be as wide a sampling as possible. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet All major reviews are noted. It is not swept under, it is not included in box as mixed reviews are already included and also including it/substituting one positive with AllMusic's negative is giving undue weight to a negative tilt that is not representative of overall reception. All the other notable reviews are also already described in prose in the article. I know some in the albums Wikiproject are very partial to AllMusic and including it without exception and without discrimination on ratings boxes. Apply NPOV correctly; WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, taking into account the nature of overall reception. The record didn't receive a negative or mixed reception, therefore the optional ratings box should not give undue weight to negative (while mixed is already present) and misrepresent general reception. The box is not treated equally the same for every album regardless of its reception; a negatively received album should have a ratings box (if it has one) that reflects that; an album with a mixed reception should have a ratings box that reflects that; a positively received album should have an overview box that reflects that. Get it? Apply NPOV correctly. Replacing a notable source, such as The Independent – who's reception generally aligns with the overall reception, unlike AllMusic's – is not neutral editing. So do reflect on "how NPOV operates". Policy directly supports giving a representative overview of overall international reception, not the contrary. Lapadite (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If we advance your average/mean/mathematics reasoning further, there's no need any review scores, just the aggregate scores. I don't agree with that; I think the individual scores are interesting and useful. AllMusic's review is especially interesting and useful. Math alone doesn't tell the story. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet You're misconscruing the point. It's not about numbers, and it's not about whether or not notable or "interesting" or the longest reviews are noted in critical reception sections. All notable reviews are in critical reception prose. AllMusic, like all others, whether "interesting" or not, is already described in prose. The issue is giving undue weight to it in the ratings box, which is to present ratings that represent the overall reception of al album. On a record that received a generally positive reception (and that's with aggregator only including a small amount of reviews; there are several other notable sources which weren't included and are positive reviews), including an essentially negative review in the ratings box is giving undue weight to it/a negative slant that does not reflect overall reception, particularly as mixed is already included in ratings box AND you're substituting a positive one for a negative, giving more of a negative perception than is real. One ought to put aside the love and indiscriminate preference for AllMusic, and edit ratings box neutrally with due weight according to a record's general reception, not according to which sources are most popular or more "interesting". Ratings box are also governed by NPOV, like all other content in articles. Ratings box should present to readers the general reception a record received (negative, mixed, or positive) through selection of the notable reviews that best represent/reflect the nature of that reception. Readers can delve further into all the reviews in prose and citations. Lapadite (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Triggered, much? Dan56 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dan56 and Binksternet on this topic, there's no reason to remove AllMusic off the template just because the website give a negative review on the album. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

To note, canvassing/WP:Votestacking is inappropriate in content disputes. TheAmazingPeanuts (and others, including Cwmhiraeth) was canvassed by RfC creator Dan56, and going by that revision, they tend to canvass each other. Lapadite (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Coming from a noticeboard, if there is an outlier score from a source normally included in the box, that should be included rather than try to be swept under the rug. You have the aggregator ratings, (which I beleive All Music's lower score already hit) so the average is clearly there, so I can tell immediately from the box that AllMusic ranked the album far more negatively than the average, which I then expect to be a point of discussion in the reception section. That's the type of quick glance info a review box like that is meant to serve. Trying to cover up AllMusic's negative source is POV. --Masem (t) 14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts and Masem: thanks for giving input. First, several sources stated that the record was generally positively received/acclaimed, such as those recently cited beside the first sentence of the section. Masem, there's no WP basis for "a source normally included in the box"; some editors just favor the indiscriminate inclusion of a source (AllMusic here) - not based on any WP policy or guideline (see: WP:CONLIMITED). Dan56 cites an essay that itself reminds to abide by NPOV. An overview ratings box is not a stronghold for any particular or favored source, it's an empty box meant to be filled with 10 notable reviews that altogether best reflect the overall reception and are also selected with consideration of presenting an worldwide overview, not U.S-centric. Trying to replace reviews ratings (positive and mixed) that represent overall reception with an outlier rating that is POV actually; it's giving undue weight to a negative slant (and U.S source, as you replaced a British one) that doesn't reflect general worldwide reception.

See my points above on your aggregator comment [with some additions]: ″Metacritic, ADM, any aggregator, are not arbitrators, especially when only 14 reviews were included by aggregator, and there are several other notable review sources available, in and outside the US, most of which are positive and would increase such scores if/when included, though again aggregator scores don't arbitrate. If you want numbers [Dan56 used numbers], with Slant Magazine, the average (and you know simple arithmetic mean is not how those aggregators calculate scores) is 76.6 - representative of overall reception. The distribution of ratings in the box reflects a weighted overview of the generally positive reception – taking into account number of notable sources in & outside the US and the general reception (where the box doesn't skew too American, or too positive or mixed). Seeking to replace a source with positive/mixed rating for a preferred site with negative rating [not representative overall reception], making it read with an undue negative slant, gives undue weight as per general reception - it is not then a representative overview of overall reception. [...] Apply NPOV correctly; WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, taking into account the nature of overall reception, not a preference for a particular source or outlier/minority rating, misrepresenting general reception. A negatively received album should have a ratings box that reflects that; an album with a mixed reception should have a box that reflects that; a positively received album should have an box that reflects that. [...] On a record that received a generally positive reception (and that's with aggregator only including a small amount of reviews; there are several other notable sources which weren't included and are positive reviews; and several sources state album was acclaimed), replacing a positive/mixed rating for the negative rating in the ratings box is giving undue weight to it/a negative slant that does not reflect overall reception. One ought to present ratings box neutrally with due weight as per a record's general reception, not according to which sources are preferred, more popular or more "interesting". Ratings box should present to readers the general reception a record received through selection of the notable reviews that best represent/reflect the nature of that reception." Lapadite (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BECONCISE. Dan56 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: TL;DR. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To note, canvassing/WP:Votestacking is inappropriate in content disputes. TheAmazingPeanuts was canvassed by RfC creator Dan56, and going by that revision, they tend to canvass each other. Funny, Dan56 posted the same TL;DR link. Lapadite (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a bad argument. Assuming that the review box is limited to showing 10 reviews and there are more than 10 reviews, then by default those sources that are considered standard for reviews should be included first and foremost for consistency across all music articles - that's part of the reason to have the box there. AllMusic seems to be one of those standardized across numerous articles, while Slant is not (as they don't have a record for covering every album release). Not including AllMusic on the basis that their score is off average from everything else is a BS argument. This is also coming from the VG article space, one of the other few projects that use this type of review table, and we would never take off a standard review source out of the table just because they gave a different review from the others. --Masem (t) 13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Masem Yeah it's limited to 10. That's one point I'd referenced earlier - there is no policy or community-wide guideline saying there's a "standard" review source for a ratings/overview box, nor would there be (beyond a local agreement by some editors on a talk page/wikiproject talk) as that would violate policy. Every overview box (when used) for every album should read differently, according to the album's overall reception, as the general reception should be taking into consideration (WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT) in the selection of ratings. Justifying disregarding overall reception/WP:DUE as "consistency across all music articles" is saying that it's fine to select the same source rating across albums with different receptions (negative, mixed, and positive) regardless of whether the ratings skew positive, mixed or negative (and also regardless of how the overview may or may not skew American). The box is a limited ratings overview box to include a WP:DUE selection of sources ratings that altogether best represent the overall reception; not to indiscriminately select the preferred source(s) by some editors regardless of the reception and WP:NPOV. I understand those who practice/prefer it would be against not practicing it. I've read previous discussions at wikiprojects over the preference for and indiscriminate use of AllMusic (or any particular source), and I know that some editors abide by such practice. See WP:CONLIMITED; WP:NPOV policy applies to everything in an article, not just prose, and that includes the ratings box. Lapadite (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this. If there are X sources that routinely rate every album out there, and X is less than 10, then those sources should always be presented, regardless if the appear to throw off averages. As I understand it, AllMusic absolutely falls into this. To not include a source that is virtually included in every other contemporary music album is bias, hiding its rating under the rug. (If this were a scientific method, this would be meddling with standardized results to get the desired one) The prose needs to address that AllMusic gave a lower rating and why it did, obviously. --Masem (t) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• No All in all, in direct violation of WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, which states [emphasis mine]: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Replacing positive/positive-leaning rating with a negative outlier is violating the aforementioned policy, and POV editing, as part of a series of WP:tendentious edits made and proposed by Dan56 on this talk's RfCs (including removing positive reviews from notable publications). For records that have received generally positive reception or acclaim per reliable sources, the ratings sample/overview box should - per quoted WP:NPOV/WP:DUE policy - reflect & represent that with the selection of ratings from notable sources. Lapadite (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the critical reception section be trimmed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this section of the article be trimmed, specifically in the way my (undone) attempt had? Please relegate lengthy comments to the discussion section, rather than bloating the votes section, which happens often. Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• No With a dozen referenced reviews, each should be addressed. It seems as though that's what we have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - I think the present Critical reception section is over-long and too riddled with quotations, and I prefer the condensed version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - "Trimming" per Dan56 is removing several positive reviews from notable publications, as he did here (which was reinstated & further copyediting done) – in direct violation of WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, which states [emphasis mine]: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. [...] Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Removing the positive reviews is strictly violating the aforementioned policy, and strictly POV editing, part of a series of WP:tendentious edits made and proposed by Dan56 on this talk's RfCs. Condensing would be shortening any unnecessarily long quotes, not removing positive reviews in violation of WP:NPOV. Lapadite (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC). Note: prose was made more concise here. Lapadite (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - I think the critical reception section should be trimmed as Cwmhiraeth pointed out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – Current section feels excessive at the expense of user readability, not to mention potentially detracting focus from other sections of the article (having a diverse scope of notable viewpoints is one thing, but at a certain point trying to cover a large amount of reviews can cross into overly detailed territory, and I'd say that a more concise revision would be just as effective in getting the album's overall critical consensus across to readers while simultaneously highlighting different points of praise/criticism). If not necessarily removed altogether certain reviews could certainly at least be made more concise (the Consequence of Sound review is summarized in almost 80 words, for instance). Holiday56 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – Based on related articles which have achieved "Good Article" status, I see that the Critical reception sections are trimmed and concise. For that reason, I'm recommending that the reviews quoted should be limited to whatever is cited in the box and then some (rather than just quoting every outlet which has an ounce of credibility). --Bobtinin (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Definitely not The critical reception of an album is a key piece of information and the only way to get a real NPOV understanding of that is with a wide variety of sources (across time, medium, bias, etc.) This is a very fine section and well-sourced. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• No. I'm listening to Kill Your Mama, do a search of the album, the first result at top of the page is Wikipedia, come here and find this. The un-Kruegerd critical reception contains perspectives that convey a deeper appreciation for the work that went into the album and the end result. It's well-sourced and comprehensible. The preponderance of the page layout is composed of listings that do not provide a collective introspection about the album. 685 words with 15 sources cut down to 447 with 8 sources ... what is the compulsion for wanting to offer readers less? Pyxis Solitary yak 07:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The section is in danger of being WP:TL;DR. Jschnur (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Paragraphs are meant to convey a topic, be distinguished by a similar thread of information, have a discernible identity. The current revision has two paragraphs that essentially say the same things: They simply deal with an assortment of positive critical viewpoints: there is no "controlling idea" or rather there are several of the same ideas in each paragraph. I would favor trimming the third paragraph as well; the Pitchfork quotation is particularly needless in reiterating a positive viewpoint when the paragraph appears to be dealing with criticism rather than praise. For more information on developing paragraphs, please read this guide. Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned by a bot. I think the section can be shorted without causing WP:UNDUE weight to a certain viewpoint regarding the album. Comatmebro (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The reviews have common ideas that don't need to be repeated. One can come away from this article with the same impression about the reception of the album even if shortened. ARR8 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Review excerpts aren't reiterating an exact view, and as noted in the section below, reception summaries are given (attributed to a secondary source) and reception content is presented so that readers read a summary of the views from all the notable sources, views on different aspects of the subject and views shared among reviewers. Readers need to see, whether a record received positive, mixed, or negative reception, the reception section present the viewpoints from all notable sources as per WP:DUE weight, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". There's no ground to remove notable content - Dan56's proposal to remove positive reviews; it strictly violates WP:NPOV policy, which is "non-negotiable", and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Aside from the proposal to remove positive reviews violating WP's PAG (and note, preferences that violate WP policy aren't supported), there's no basis to deprive readers of notable reviews. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and WP:FA and articles in a "finished" state are comprehensive. This is not remotely including all reviews from reliable sources on the record. Some review excerpts could definitely be trimmed, particularly in the last paragraph; however, Dan56's comment above on further removing any positive viewpoint that critics express in conjunction with reservations also violates what WP:NPOV policy states. Lapadite (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• No because reliable source reviews are of great importance to the notability of the article and give the expert critics assessment of the work which Wikipedia needs to include as it is of historical and cultural interest. No valid reason for trimming see WP:Not paper regards 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I made an attempt to trim this section of the article, which in my opinion is a bloated, unreadable quote farm, but this was undone by Lapadite77, who claimed I was editing "tendentiously" (pfft) and violating Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (glob knows how). Here was my revision of a condensed version. As you can see, there are far less quotations used without pertinence, and it appears less like a list or repository of quotations that repeat the same points of praise but in different verbiage. Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:, I would not blame you if you didn't--it is an utterly impossible read in its current state--but did you make any comparison of the trimmed revision to the current one? Example: Slant is cited as saying it mixes "the political with the personal", "avoids formula and radio staples", and Keys' performance is "naked"; and Consequence of Sound is cited as saying "political, social, and emotional honesty"; these were both removed in favor of keeping other critics who had already made these points: Robert Christgau ("simultaneously raw and political"), The Wall Street Journal ("eschewing commerciality"), Financial Times ("politically active music"). Another example: PopMatters was removed ("rawest and best album of her career", evoking the edge that made her debut "so memorable",) because Christgau had found it to be "Keys' best record since her debut Songs in A Minor"). Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

To your point about dealing with each review individually, how can this even be possible when Lapadite77 compulsively reverts and admonishes even the slightest revision to this section? Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not that I can't read the current state of the content, it's that it's not necessary to read the content. It's clear that the content is sparse and the reviews are all addressed. There is no need to prune and there is no need for this RfC as there has been no discussion about the section and you went straight to it after not getting your way in the article. Don't ping me again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(of course Dan56 ultimately forces others to comment on conduct) - typical of Dan56 to overreact to content disputes, engage in bad faith & accusations and outright misrepresentation of what he and others have done/said. What you did do was tendentiously remove [not a "slight revision" as you deceptively put it] several (and positive) reviews from notable sources [P.S if an IP did that it would be normally considered vandalism]; after & while you're pushing to continue disregarding WP:NPOV and replace a mixed/positive review with a negative review in the ratings box despite the record having a generally positive reception, to give undue weight and negative slant, clashes with overall worldwide reception. Your edits here do not suggest any neutrality from you. You've absolutely no grounds to remove notable content especially in order to fit your POV. Moreover, reception content should be presented so that readers see a summary of different views and comments on different aspects of the subject as well as views that are also shared among reviewers. Lapadite (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Crucial clarification: Some should understand what is actually being proposed against WP:NPOV policy: Dan56 seeks to remove several positive/positive-leaning reviews from notable sources (e.g, NME, Slant Magazine, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, The Observer, Consequence of Sound), skewing the presentation of reception to read less positive/more negative (along with trying to present a less +/more - slant on the ratings box that neutrally represents general international reception) despite the record receiving a generally positive reception/general acclaim per reliable sources; violating WP:Due/Weight, NOT "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views." It is against WP:NPOV policy to remove those notable reviews. No POV-seeking or policy-violating RfC or local consensus overrides policy. "WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Dan56 thinks policy-violating POV & tendentious edits are accomplished if he can find more than those opposing to agree with his POV/bias, whether or not acknowledging inherent and surrounding issues. As Walter Görlitz noted above and in discussion section below, there are multiple notable reviews & all should be addressed in prose, and "there is no need for this RfC as there has been no discussion about the section and you went straight to it after not getting your way in the article". This is conspicuous, utter POV-driven, personal bias-seeking, policy-disregarding absurdity; if an IP removes a group of positive reviews or negative reviews they don't want from an article it is automatically rightfully reverted (& normally considered vandalism). A reception section that's no different than most, 3 paragraphs of brief summaries/excerpts of reviews from notable sources, could easily be copyedited if needed without removing notable reviews that are significantly part of and representative of overall reception. Lapadite (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BECONCISE. Dan56 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

More WP:TENDENTIOUS editing from Dan56, removing citations for general reception sentence, and reverting trimming of summary/quotes as agreed on by several editors in talk discussion/Dan56's Rfc. Holiday56, you're one of the ones who agreed on some ce/trimming of overlong summary/quotes. See Dan56 reverting trimming. As noted above and in this discussion page, Dan56 actually seeks to remove the several positive reviews he had removed before being reverted. Lapadite (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

More canvassing/WP:Votestacking from Dan56 here (editor Holiday56) and here (editor Harfarhs). Lapadite (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bobtinin [edit: in reply to Bobtinin's comment in the Votes section; moved here by Dan56] It's completely against policy, and tons of GA and FA articles, have all or majority of available notable reviews summarized in prose (whether in two, three, four paragraphs). This article has some of all notable reviews available, and summarized concisely. 10 review ratings selected for any ratings box is arbitrary, and merely a tiny sample of reviews from many notable sources. Never is the optional ratings box the primary content of a critical reception section. It's merely a supplementary sample of ratings for a quick overview. Removing the reviews from notable sources against NPOV policy, which states among other things applicable: "NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. […] This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. […] Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. … Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Lapadite (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Dan56, you're an involved editor, specifically one who's been actively trying to dismiss the policy-based arguments put forward against your POV - so stop moving my comments made directly in response to a specific comment because they inconvenience your POV/NPOV policy-violating proposals and your need for a vote count in your favor to decide RfCs. Especially as you, like many, also respond directly below RfC comments/votes, of course. An uninvolved editor/admin can do so if they think replies shouldn't be made directly below the post they're meant for in an RfC. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• I checked the WP:ALBUMSTYLE guideline for the Critical reception section and it does not impose a set length and number of sources allowed. I also checked WP:R&B and saw that the RfC had not been posted in its talk page — so I went ahead and did so in both wiki projects: here and there. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

True, though even if it did, the blanket issue is the WP:NPOV policy being repeatedly violated and dismissed by these POV proposals and edits by Dan56, seeking to remove notable, significant content, particularly that is positive in nature (for an album that received an overall positive reception/"acclaim"), including replacing a positive/positive-leaning rating with a negative outlier. While WP:NPOV/WP:DUE states: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. [...] Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." As I'd noted above, essays and local consensus don't override policy: WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional". WP:NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." NPOV policy violation is the inherent primary issue. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

My opinion given above (in Votes) remains the same.
685 words is not really that long and 15 sources does not equal a quote farm, and anyone who can't read 685 words probably has a reading comprehension difficulty and perhaps a reading disability on top of it — and Wikipedia does not exist as a special needs encyclopedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should these citations be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the critical reception section the sentence, "Here was met with generally positive reviews from critics", was given three citations--all to press releases--by someone ([1]). The following sentence, mentioning Metacritic's aggregate score for this album, had a citation in place, to Metacritic, which itself says the album received "generally favorable reviews" ([2]). I reverted the addition of the three citations, regarding it as a case of citation overkill, before they were restored by someone ([3]). Should they be removed? Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

• Yes - The reference to Metacritic directly supports the first two sentences--"generally positive reviews" + aggregate score. Per WP:REPCITE, this one citation is enough, and more for an individual sentence is "overkill." Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Dan56's rationale. Strikerforce^Talk 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• No The evaluative sentence/claim did not have a citation in place. Metacritic verifies Metacritic only: the amount of reviews it's selected, its own formula for its assigned scores, and its 5 standard evaluations of its range of scores. We also attribute Rotten Tomatoes' to Rotten Tomatoes only. We don't make evaluative statements from their process/algorithms, we merely report that Metacritic calculated this from its selection/algorithm, and Rotten Tomatoes calculated that. We include those aggregators as supplementary information for readers. WP giving an evaluative statement – favorable, negative, mixed, acclaimed – needs to be verified by cited reliable secondary sources, who (not an algorithm) have written a summary of overall reception. Also see previous discussions on this at wikiprojects including WT:ALBUM and WT:FILM; and see recent top discussion at Talk:Ocean's_8, where RfC creator Dan56 himself said: "reporting what actual journalists with the ability to understand nuanced information beyond a (man-made) algorithm is also verifiable." "Just what are the majority of independent reliable sources reporting (not calculating or aggregating) of the film's reception?" "But that there is information available[…]along with a nuanced summary that an aggregate score such as Metacritic will never be capable of... that is a boon." "it's aggregate score should not be given any more weight as the authoritative word on the film's reception, when it is just a minor aspect of this topic[…]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• No. WP:Citation overkill is a controversial essay in the first place; but certainly arguing that a mere three citations is excessive is going too far. If you have an objection to any of those sources (including redundancy), raise it specifically rather than pointing to an essay. Additionally, Metacritic itself is a WP:PRIMARY source for its ratings - having secondary sources is desirable. This shows why blindly adhering to a poorly-considered essay like WP:Citation overkill is a bad idea - you need to consider the individual citations in the context of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Aquillion:, I did not merely cite that essay; my other objection described below is that all three citations were to press releases, which are of questionable reliable (Grammy press release, Singapore concert press release, Brooklyn Museum press release). Metacritic's ratings are not being synthesized into a novel interpretation; the designation of "generally favorable reviews" is a second-source commentary on the review scores (collectively), and is not controversial. Dan56 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

!Discussion

"If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

..that link is irrelevant to the matter of citing evaluative statements to reliable secondary sources; and Metacritic/an algorithm/aggregator only verifies/cites Metacritic/algorithm/aggregator, it does not cite evaluative statements made on WP. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Lapadite (talk)

Cool. Thank you for taking the time and energy to repeat yourself. Alas, I am unconvinced. Dan56 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The sources Lapadite77 added are all press releases (Grammy press release, Singapore concert press release, Brooklyn Museum press release) that mention "critical acclaim" in passing with no elaboration; for those who are not well read on identifying reliable sources: "a press release is clearly not an independent source". Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Press releases not accepted on WP [emphasis mine]: A press release is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization. I.e, the subject/her camp did not write/release an article for The Recording Academy about herself/the other artist also awarded [FYI, The Recording Academy publishes articles on industry news, as well as interviews with artists], nor did she/her camp hire The Recording Academy write one of their articles about her/the other artist; The Recording Academy published an article (like it always does) on presenting an award to these artists, giving a summary of and commentary on the subjects' careers.

Those three sources cited that I've found comprise: 1) A article from The Recording Academy on the artist's career (where this album is noted to have received acclaim), reporting they're presenting the artist a career award; 2) TODAY Online article on the artist performing at a concert/festival for this album along with other artists performing (just like any of Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc, would report), and writer notes that the album was met with acclaim; and 3) Brooklyn Museum news article reporting on the artist being honored by the museum. The article published by The Recording Academy is about the subject's career, but regardless, it's immaterial whether a statement about the reception of an artist's work is given "in passing" by a reliable source's article on the artist (we're not talking about a reception statement made in an article about someone else) – it still verifies the statement. On the other hand, a review of an album commenting on its general reception MAY be a questionable source for the claim, as they are reviewing/proving their opinion on the album. If the Brooklyn Museum article is controversial to cite, then the other two do just fine. Lapadite (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The source Dan56 added does not verify the statement or any statement on reception. Lapadite (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The Grammy.com url has the phrase "press release" in it --> https://www.grammy.com/press-releases/international-music-icons-alicia-keys-and-swizz-beatz-be-honored-recording-academy™ Dan56 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

*Definitely not The critical reception of an album is a key piece of information and the only way to get a real NPOV understanding of that is with a wide variety of sources (across time, medium, bias, etc.) This is a very fine section and well-sourced. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Koavf Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you commented on the wrong RfC as your comment appears to be about the proposal to remove reviews from reliable sources in prose. Lapadite (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: You are not! Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• "all to press releases--by someone ([4])."
  "before they were restored by someone ([5])."
  I think the hostility exhibited towards another Wikipedia editor by referring to him/her repeatedly as "someone " should be sufficient reason to dismiss this RfC immediately. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Is italicizing the word "someone" a few times offensive or hostile, compared to leveraging accusations of an unspecified "bias" and "tendentious editing" twenty-odd times in neurotic, rambled walls of personal attacks? ([6], [7], this talk page) Dan56 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It is hostile. Because it's an RfC that you created and referring to the editor you are disagreeing with as "someone " is dismissive of, and belittles, said editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You're ignoring their behavior towards me, the doggedness and intensity of it, so I don't care that you feel this way about my negligible offense; it's narcissistic for this person to take offense to this little slight after they've done what I described to you. Dan56 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how said person (User:Lapadite77) feels about it and that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is your behavior in your own RfC. But, fine ... carry on. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What matters is what other editors have chosen to focus on; not one mention by you of their ridiculous and aggressive attacks. Dan56 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

When I saw the references to "someone", I figured you were talking about an IP. I was surprised to see you meant a registered editor, and found the phrase to be passive aggressive. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• No Time for a topic band for Dan56 to anything music related? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Time for someone to install a spell-check plugin for their browser? Dan56 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ban" and "band" and both correct spellings of words. Dan. Are you so completely ig7norant that you don't know the difference between the two concepts? And for the record, RfCs are only to be created after a discussion has come to an impasse. It's not designed to replace discussion. This is the second abuse of the RfC process you've initiated. So to reiterate: No, there is not too much prose in the reviews section as each review has one short sentence and connecting sentences that tie the reviews together and no, there not to many reviews. Yes, Dan56 should walk away from this article and drop the WP:STICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a difference in the two concepts; see this and any other dictionary reference. RfCs are alternatives to initial attempts at discussion; nothing about "only to be created after..." here. I made a "reasonable attempt" at discussion before any RfC with Lapadite77, who responded immediately with assumptions of bad faith editing in too-long-to-read blocks of text. @Walter Görlitz: should communicate in a more civil manner and assume good faith if he wants to continue discussing me here. Dan56 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @Dan56: There is no assumption of bad faith. There is no discussion about this concept so you've one again misused the RfC process. That's twice on one article and within a week! There is no extended discussion here about the removal of the references that reached an impasse. That is clear and it's a misuse of the RfC process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
        • There's nothing at WP:RFCBEFORE (which you cited) about a requirement of a discussion reaching an impasse. You're misrepresenting the guideline to portray me negatively because I've irked you. The guideline says: "It's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. Lapadite77 has demonstrated an inability to discuss the content with me without resorting immediately to bias- and bad-faith accusations. Outside opinions were necessary, as Dlohcierekim and Iazyges can attest. So cool it with the threats. Dan56 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
          • "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Emphasis mine. How can you say that there is nothing there about this? Did you get the opinion of other editors here? Did you take it to the appropriate projects? Did you discuss here? Where's the input from those editors? Or did you just stop after reading the first sentence there and say that it doesn't apply to you. Maybe you're justWP:NOTHERE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
            • @Walter Görlitz: Brandishing topic bans and WP:NOTHERE as conflict resolution tools is absurdly aggressive. Feel free to comment on the topic here but further comments on Dan56 or other editors is likely to result in a block to prevent further disruption. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
              • Aggressive? Yes, I am making my point that you're disruptive in an aggressive way so you get the point. Absurd? Not in any way. The only absurdity here is your approach to this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
                • That comment wasn't made by me, silly. Dan56 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 15 September 2018

This citation to AXS I added yesterday should be removed. I was attempting to appease another editor's insistence that a source other than Metacritic (which says "generally favorable reviews") be used to verify the opening sentence. But I did not read the AXS source carefully before adding it; it refers to Alicia Keys' previous album receiving "mostly positive reviews", not Here. Dan56 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Dan56 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)