Talk:Twin Cinema

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

• All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have had disambig links placed at the appropriate article or disambiguation page.--Hraefen ^Talk 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews Section

I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines for this section but the two deletions I made seem to be to be fairly straightforward to me. Robert Christgau is an individual reviewer while all the others are major sites or magazines. If the reviews of individual reviewers were allowed the reviews section would surely become huge and unruly. The second review I deleted was one from Okayplayer. Okayplayer is a hip hip site and this is not a hip hop album. BigRockFan (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Christgau has generally been considered an appropriate listing in Professional reviews (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Professional reviews). The last discussion about it, as far as I can tell, was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 21#Removing Robert Christgau's Reviews From Album Pages. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Paul. That is very strange about Robert Christgau. How can individual reviewers be allowed in the review section? In this case his own Pazz & Jop Poll ranked Twin Cinema as the 9th best album of the year, and this comes from the compiled ratings of 795 reviewers:

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres05.php

His own review of this album was completely out of step with literally hundreds of other reviewers, just shy of 800 to be precise, so why should his review take precedence? He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but here is a perfect example of why his opinion, or any other single reviewer’s opinion, should not be allowed, imo. Thanks again for the heads up and I’ll go and join that discussion now. BigRockFan (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One further note. I’d be happy to restore Christgau’s review while the discussion about his reviews in general is taking place, but this specific review of his is strangely unclear. Christgau uses a letter grading system but for some reason he’s placed two stars beside this album and it’s unclear what that means. http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=new+pornographers

Note that other albums from that year, 2005, were given letter grades. http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=m.i.a.BigRockFan (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I found what it means but I’m still not sure what to do with it. His ** means, “Honorable Mention is an likable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well enjoy”. http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php BigRockFan (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)