Talk:Anthem of the Peaceful Army
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Sources
edit- http://ultimateclassicrock.com/greta-van-fleet-anthem-of-the-peaceful-army/
- http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/greta-van-fleet-debut-album-title-track-listing-revealed/
- https://www.loudersound.com/news/greta-van-fleet-announce-debut-album-anthem-of-the-peaceful-army
- http://loudwire.com/greta-van-fleet-debut-album-reveal-track-listing/
- https://waaf.radio.com/blogs/anthony-capobianco/greta-van-fleet-announces-debut-album-track-listing
- https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/219716/9
Parentheses in review box
editAn editor appears to be riled up over the fact that the review table contains thing like “Loudwire | (Positive)”, and continues to revert people over it - apparently not challenging the word choice, but rather, the use of parentheses around “positive”.
Is there any consensus on how to handle this, or is this just edit-warring in accordance to personal preference? I honestly don’t know for sure, but I see the parentheses approach relatively frequently, so I’d be surprised to hear it’s not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- To expand on this, I also think the parentheses have a purpose. They indicate it was more of a generalization of the review’s message, rather than an official or literal designation by the review. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I looked into it. It's a personal preference thing, I guess, even though this happens in numerous other album articles. Looked in the template documentation and the style guide for albums and came up empty; there's not even a mention of scale-less types of review anywhere. dannymusiceditor oops 02:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- If it’s just a personal preference thing, they shouldn’t just keep reverting it out with edit summaries that contain yelling to stop opposing them. If there’s no MOS dictating, then they should have started a discussion in hopes of finding a consensus. Regardless, per my second comment in the section, I think it’s better if they are included. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- The issue of subjective reviews in review rating boxes has been covered, most significantly in this archived discussion. Basically, it's WP:OR to try and decide how to label/rate a review for someone who decided not to assign one. As for the parentheses, I don't think either of you know parentheses are used for: "Parentheses contain material that serves to clarify (in the manner of a gloss) or is aside from the main point." In summary, there is no main point to do an aside from, nothing to separate the label from, nor is there anything that needs clarification. The labels are in their own separate cell of the table - there is absolutely no reason to put parenths around to separate them further from.... nothing. The reason they have even been used in this context is an artifact of a time long ago when review ratings were part of the album infobox, and the reviewer/publication appeared inline with the rating itself, with nothing to separate the two. See here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, for starters, the first discussion you linked to is over 5 years old, and appears to have closed without a consensus. Also, your reverts, and my discussion, is just about parentheses in review tables. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- The issue of subjective reviews in review rating boxes has been covered, most significantly in this archived discussion. Basically, it's WP:OR to try and decide how to label/rate a review for someone who decided not to assign one. As for the parentheses, I don't think either of you know parentheses are used for: "Parentheses contain material that serves to clarify (in the manner of a gloss) or is aside from the main point." In summary, there is no main point to do an aside from, nothing to separate the label from, nor is there anything that needs clarification. The labels are in their own separate cell of the table - there is absolutely no reason to put parenths around to separate them further from.... nothing. The reason they have even been used in this context is an artifact of a time long ago when review ratings were part of the album infobox, and the reviewer/publication appeared inline with the rating itself, with nothing to separate the two. See here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- If it’s just a personal preference thing, they shouldn’t just keep reverting it out with edit summaries that contain yelling to stop opposing them. If there’s no MOS dictating, then they should have started a discussion in hopes of finding a consensus. Regardless, per my second comment in the section, I think it’s better if they are included. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I looked into it. It's a personal preference thing, I guess, even though this happens in numerous other album articles. Looked in the template documentation and the style guide for albums and came up empty; there's not even a mention of scale-less types of review anywhere. dannymusiceditor oops 02:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Pitchfork review
editThe review is definitely worth mentioning, and maybe a short follow sentence about it being found controversial by other 3rd party reliable sources, like Loudwire, but this expansion is way too much. It’s an WP:UNDUE issue for over half of the reception section prose to be dwelling on a single review. The overall reception prose definitely needs to be expanded more first. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. As much as I saw the Pitchfork review being commented on by other media outlets, to have most of the critical reception section (as it stands at this stage) devoted to one review is a bit much. Ss112 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)