71:
53:
22:
187:
295:
160:
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
138:? 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!)
350:
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
267:
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.
209:
185:
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
248:
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? —
213:
87:
463:
280:
229:
174:
406:
Well, I'll be damned ... for years I thought it was a genre, but a search confirms your assertion. Thanks for the heads-up,
33:
78:
58:
346:"expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work
70:
52:
244:. I believe they support my position—and the second link cites, again, only the one editor's opinion that
39:
291:
Therein lies the problem; it isn't thus published, at least as of this edit. I appreciate your input.
21:
86:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
428:
382:
274:
223:
168:
446:
422:
400:
367:
311:
286:
260:
235:
203:
180:
154:
355:—not merely unfair—to punish the author for no reason other than the site of publication. —
442:
396:
457:
417:
362:
335:
331:
306:
268:
255:
241:
217:
198:
162:
149:
127:
433:
407:
387:
381:
is not a music genre, ballad is a style. So, why it is labelled as its genre?
342:
is not a "self-published source", I believe we can by extension agree that
411:
356:
300:
249:
192:
143:
378:
210:
WP:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Critical reception
140:
Meantime, I'll try to find a better source for the other instance
83:
15:
161:
site I'm afraid hasn't since gotten any better overall.
134:
82:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
216:, which apply to essentially all music articles.
191:override any issues with the website. Thanks. —
8:
47:
330:With utmost respect and admiration for
49:
19:
7:
334:, I'm going to restore the data per
292:
76:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
293:
69:
51:
20:
1:
214:WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources
90:and see a list of open tasks.
447:23:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
423:21:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
401:21:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
368:21:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
312:18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
287:18:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
261:18:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
236:12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
204:05:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
181:05:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
155:04:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
132:will you please reconsider
96:Knowledge:WikiProject Songs
480:
374:Acoustic ballad as a genre
99:Template:WikiProject Songs
64:
46:
240:Thanks for the links,
28:This article is rated
464:C-Class song articles
348:in the relevant field
34:content assessment
118:
117:
114:
113:
110:
109:
79:WikiProject Songs
471:
439:
436:
431:
420:
414:
393:
390:
385:
365:
359:
309:
303:
298:
297:
296:
258:
252:
201:
195:
190:
152:
146:
137:
131:
104:
103:
100:
97:
94:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
479:
478:
474:
473:
472:
470:
469:
468:
454:
453:
437:
434:
429:
418:
412:
391:
388:
383:
376:
363:
357:
307:
301:
294:
256:
250:
199:
193:
186:
150:
144:
133:
125:
123:
121:Donnelly review
101:
98:
95:
92:
91:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
477:
475:
467:
466:
456:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
375:
372:
371:
370:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
142:(done). TIA. —
122:
119:
116:
115:
112:
111:
108:
107:
105:
88:the discussion
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
476:
465:
462:
461:
459:
448:
444:
440:
432:
426:
425:
424:
421:
415:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
386:
380:
373:
369:
366:
360:
354:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
313:
310:
304:
290:
289:
288:
284:
283:
278:
277:
272:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
253:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
232:
227:
226:
221:
220:
215:
211:
207:
206:
205:
202:
196:
189:
184:
183:
182:
178:
177:
172:
171:
166:
165:
159:
158:
157:
156:
153:
147:
141:
136:
129:
120:
106:
102:song articles
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
427:No problem.
377:
352:
347:
343:
339:
281:
275:
269:
245:
230:
224:
218:
175:
169:
163:
139:
124:
77:
40:WikiProjects
188:credentials
135:this edit
458:Category
353:improper
340:PopCrush
338:. While
332:Snuggums
270:Snuggums
246:PopCrush
242:SNUGGUMS
219:Snuggums
164:Snuggums
128:SNUGGUMS
408:Tbhotch
30:C-class
443:en-2.5
397:en-2.5
379:Ballad
336:WP:SPS
36:scale.
438:hotch
392:hotch
282:edits
231:edits
176:edits
93:Songs
84:songs
59:Songs
419:Talk
364:Talk
308:Talk
276:talk
257:Talk
225:talk
212:and
208:See
200:Talk
170:talk
151:Talk
445:).
416:🖖
413:ATS
410:. —
399:).
361:🖖
358:ATS
344:any
305:🖖
302:ATS
254:🖖
251:ATS
197:🖖
194:ATS
148:🖖
145:ATS
460::
435:Tb
389:Tb
285:)
279:/
234:)
228:/
179:)
173:/
441:(
430:©
395:(
384:©
299:—
273:(
222:(
167:(
130::
126:@
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
