Talk:Construct (album)

Metal Blast review

A number of reviews were just added for the album, all of questionable quality. Can anyone demonstrate that any of these are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."? (per WP:RS) If not, they will be removed (they can always be re-added if evidence is later given showing them to pass this requirement). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comments. I added the Metal Blast review. Other than the fact that we deal directly with the labels (receive pre-releases) and interviews with some of the biggest metal bands, I don't know what other evidence to give you. As for "fact checking and accuracy", I'm afraid that this doesn't really apply for reviews, be it from Metal Hammer, Kerrang or (the much smaller) Metal Blast, as they are intrinsically subjective.

I can also point to the official facebook page of the band, which featured this review: https://www.facebook.com/dtofficial?fref=ts&rf=111650808854378 If there is anything else I can do for you, let me know. :) MetalBlastZine (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fact-checking and accuracy" absolutely applies to reviews. Per WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, "Additional sites and sources may also be used, provided they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources...". For example, larger magazines like Kerrang or Rolling Stone, or major sites like Allmusic or Blabbermouth, are established as being reliable sources, and thus their reviews are considered acceptable to use on album articles on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I see no evidence that any of these sites would pass WP:RS, and thus the inclusion of their reviews is questionable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You are confusing things here. An "opinion" is nothing more than "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter". By this standard, any review, as long as the reviewer actually listened to the album, is "accurate"; as for reliability, I can only imagine this not being the case when the reviewer is being compensated in order to rate the album in a certain fashion. Other than the obvious difference in traffic, how can you consider us less "reliable" than Kerrang or Blabbermouth, considering that the labels themselves recognize this reliability? Metal Blast (I cannot speak for the other magazines) is a completely reliable and professional magazine; we have sponsored festivals (e.g. PPM in Belgium, featuring bands like Avantasia, Behemoth and Helloween), work directly with the biggest labels, conduct interviews regularly... I mean, other than the difference in size and duration in time, I see no reason why our review (which was even mentioned by the band themselves!) should be purged from the article. MetalBlastZine (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am confusing nothing. WP:RS applies, as I quoted from WP:ALBUM/REVSIT above. Have you read these links? If not, you should do so. At WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, there are several links in the intro showing how a review site can become considered a reliable source. Read through those examples of how sites/magazines such as The AV Club and Kerrang became considered reliable sources for reviews. Then if you can provide similar evidence of Metal Blast fitting the criteria of a reliable source, please do so. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.", Metal Blast fits this. Why don't we just stop beating around the bush and you just tell me why Metal Blast isn't a reliable source? MetalBlastZine (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to give you a chance to prove that it is a reliable source. But my reasoning is that Metal Blast appears to have no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's the main thing. Did you look at those links I have provided yet? On Wikipedia we follow what these policies and guidelines say, and passing WP:RS is required for a source (such as a review) to be considered reliable. Again, look at those links I have provided, look at the examples of how to be considered a reliable review site linked on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, and provide some evidence that your site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you cannot, I will remove the review. If you wish, you can also start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums asking for more input from other editors; perhaps they can provide the evidence needed that Metal Blast is a reliable source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm really sorry since I saw these links, but for the life of me I can't find "examples of how to be considered a reliable review site[...]". These are the points that I found:

a. "Reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.". Metal Blast fits this description. Metal Blast has an editorial and writing staff and is fully independent from external pressures. b. "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Same. c. I don't know how "fact checking and accuracy" can be proven in a review. Metal Blast can, definitely, prove it with every single interview (a transcript of which, in the case of video interviews, is created exclusively to ensure that those interested can have easy access to the information without needing to watch the whole thing) but in the case of reviews "accuracy" is a bit tricky. Do you mean that the staff thoroughly reviews the albums and gives an informed opinion, without any sort of influence from external sources? Then the answer is yes. Metal Blast does not post news (let alone "gossip") so its accuracy cannot be measured there. d. As I assume that part of this has to do with the size and trajectory of the site (which is, unquestionably, MUCH smaller than Metal Hammer or Kerrang!) I can only point to the cooperation that Metal Blast has with every major label in the world and the fact that their trust has manifested itself not only by sending promos before the releases, but also by allowing the magazine to interview some of their biggest artists. The amount of visitors is increasing every month (it's in the thousands) and it's slowly positioning itself as a reliable source of interviews and reviews.As a matter of fact, some "metal blast" content has been added by people not related to the magazine, as we have seen from the "pingbacks" on the site. I honestly hope that the above is enough for your question; if there is anything I did not address I hope that you can tell me. (by the way, my username is being changed as we speak) MetalBlastZine (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, the links I am referring to are in the opening part of WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. "Note: Please don't add any items to the list before discussing it first on the talk page. Take a look into the project archives for examples of how it has been done in the past. For example here, here, or here." Click on the "here" links to see how other sources were verified to be reliable. Basically other reliable sources out there need to reference Metal Blast. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it's even easier. These are some of the instances in which Blabbermouth has used Metal Blast's Material. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=%22metal+blast%22&x=0&y=0

I'll go add this information to the talk page and continue with that. Thanks MetalBlastZine (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Other reviews

The discussion above seems ready to be resolved for Metal Blast (based on this talk page section), but the other added reviews have had no one supporting their reliability. If no one has anything to say in defence of these other reviews, they will be removed within a reasonable amount of time (and can be re-added in the future should any/all prove to be reliable). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, no one has come forward to defend these sites, so I am removing them for now, until their reliability can be established. At that time any can be re-added. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have again removed a bunch of reviews from sites that have not been shown to pass WP:RS, including Metal Blast, which so far has not been approved as a review site. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Under the Gun Review review

I've removed the Under the Gun Review review (and the information presented from it), as the site does not appear to pass WP:RS. I couldn't find any evidence that the site shows a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and in fact could find very little that references the site other than the site itself, and various social media accounts related to it. It can be re-added if someone can demonstrate that it passes WP:RS. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)