142:
121:
534:
71:
53:
22:
241:. To be honest, I'm less happy with your inclusion of reviews from the Prog Archives website. Putting aside the fact that I personally don't regard PH as a progressive rock musician (although I realise this is a contentious POV), I'm not sure that particular website is of sufficient quality to merit its reviews being linked to.
437:
BTW categorizing Peter
Hammill was not my point. (Prog archives has PH in the "Art Rock" genre also.) I introduce every second review of Peter Hammill's albums with the words "This isn't progressive rock music." It is not possible to subsume it in any category. I mostly say "songs by a contemporary
324:
What is "professional"? If you regard the reviews of the music press as "professional" (I don't), AMG would not fit in this category. It's a private site and most of the reviews are written by volunteers. Sure it has not earned to be the only review link for a Peter
Hammill album. You see that was
394:
Severe doubts stay about the monopoly AMG has at
Knowledge's, about the quality of many reviews, and overall about ratings of albums at Knowledge. However I spent a little time at AMG and it might be a better source for Knowledge than Progarchives because there is control by staff while at
505:
I am glad you agree. I couldn't resist placing two more sources on the "Silent Corner" page. Julian Cope's site is renowned and the vintageprog is one of the most visited of the genre. Not an own page for every album but the reviews are well written IMO. What do you think?
285:
Prog
Archives has some poor and many well written reviews. In the sum of the reviews you'll get quite a good impression of an album. I assist the opinion of Feline1 regarding All Music Guide. For instance the review about "The Silent Corner and the Empty Stage"
583:
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on
467:
Agree your approach 100%. The links to scans from old music papers are a good idea and very welcome, although the Melody Maker one is actually an interview not a review. I'll do some more as time permits (I know the couchnoise site).
266:
Pretty much every 'All Music Guide' review I've read has been rubbish - blandly written, full of factual inaccuracies, completely out of touch with how the albumn relates to other music. --
580:
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with
Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
416:
I'll substitute the progarchives link with articles from professional music magazines where I can. I hope Melody Maker and Sounds articles are welcome though they are only scans.
632:
192:
182:
217:
Great that someone is taking care of the PH albums. However I think
Knowledge is not the post ratings of albums. They are very personal opinions. Why not 4 stars or 2?
627:
158:
561:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
558:
585:
577:
573:
550:
149:
126:
622:
617:
589:
366:
87:
245:
specifies that only professional reviews should be linked - no strict definition is given, but I'm pretty sure that Prog
Archives
82:, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
83:
78:
58:
33:
474:
255:
569:
541:
395:
Progarchives anybody can publish their reviews. It's okay for me keeping the
Progarchives link at the main PH page.
599:
21:
221:
507:
439:
370:
343:
228:
39:
545:
is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
595:
472:
287:
253:
267:
157:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
546:
154:
438:
artist". Anyway the person Peter
Hammill is a main character of progressive rock music. --
342:
Overall I see Knowledge pages get cluttered altogether with infoboxes, categories, a.s.o--
242:
238:
141:
120:
469:
250:
603:
533:
510:
476:
442:
373:
346:
270:
257:
231:
611:
562:
237:
I don't like it either, but it is a required feature of album infoboxes - see
70:
52:
222:
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=2286
307:
Another good resource for English written reviews is Amazon.co.uk.
288:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:geb1z8hajyvn
15:
532:
557:
Knowledge article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
224:
you see this album gets nearly 4 stars out of 17 ratings.
86:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
153:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
588:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
529:Fair use rationale for Image:Peter Hammill pH7.jpg
8:
325:the fact that drove me in with Progarchives.
19:
115:
47:
633:Low-importance Progressive rock articles
227:I would completely abandon the stars.--
117:
49:
578:Knowledge:Fair use rationale guideline
249:professional. Other views welcome. --
167:Knowledge:WikiProject Progressive Rock
628:Start-Class Progressive rock articles
170:Template:WikiProject Progressive Rock
7:
147:This article is within the scope of
76:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
367:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums
576:. Using one of the templates at
140:
119:
69:
51:
20:
187:This article has been rated as
590:Media copyright questions page
1:
559:boilerplate fair use template
365:I took the discussion there:
243:WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews
239:WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews
161:and see a list of open tasks.
604:07:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
586:criteria for speedy deletion
511:15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
477:14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
443:14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
374:18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
347:17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
271:17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
258:16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
232:15:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
150:WikiProject Progressive Rock
96:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums
623:WikiProject Albums articles
542:Image:Peter Hammill pH7.jpg
99:Template:WikiProject Albums
649:
618:Start-Class Album articles
570:the image description page
193:project's importance scale
572:and edit it to include a
186:
173:Progressive rock articles
135:
64:
46:
551:explanation or rationale
537:
220:If you have a look at
28:This article is rated
553:as to why its use in
536:
213:Reviews and ratings
574:fair use rationale
538:
79:WikiProject Albums
34:content assessment
508:Peter Eisenburger
440:Peter Eisenburger
371:Peter Eisenburger
344:Peter Eisenburger
229:Peter Eisenburger
207:
206:
203:
202:
199:
198:
114:
113:
110:
109:
640:
549:but there is no
175:
174:
171:
168:
165:
164:Progressive Rock
155:Progressive rock
144:
137:
136:
131:
127:Progressive Rock
123:
116:
104:
103:
100:
97:
94:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
648:
647:
643:
642:
641:
639:
638:
637:
608:
607:
531:
215:
172:
169:
166:
163:
162:
129:
101:
98:
95:
92:
91:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
646:
644:
636:
635:
630:
625:
620:
610:
609:
596:BetacommandBot
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:is really bad.
276:
275:
274:
273:
261:
260:
214:
211:
209:
205:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
189:Low-importance
185:
179:
178:
176:
159:the discussion
145:
133:
132:
130:Low‑importance
124:
112:
111:
108:
107:
105:
102:Album articles
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
645:
634:
631:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
615:
613:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:. Thank you.
591:
587:
581:
579:
575:
571:
568:Please go to
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
535:
528:
512:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
478:
475:
473:
471:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
444:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
375:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
348:
345:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
272:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
256:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
225:
223:
218:
212:
210:
194:
190:
184:
181:
180:
177:
160:
156:
152:
151:
146:
143:
139:
138:
134:
128:
125:
122:
118:
106:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
594:
582:
567:
554:
540:
539:
246:
226:
219:
216:
208:
188:
148:
84:project page
77:
40:WikiProjects
30:Start-class
612:Categories
88:discussion
470:Richardrj
251:Richardrj
563:fair use
547:fair use
268:feline1
191:on the
93:Albums
59:Albums
36:scale.
247:isn't
600:talk
555:this
183:Low
614::
602:)
565:.
506:--
468:--
369:--
598:(
195:.
90:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
