Talk:Version 2.0: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:43, 31 January 2015 editTeflon Peter Christ (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:45, 31 January 2015 edit undoTeflon Peter Christ (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:

	;Comments		;Comments
	I feel it overloads the section with quotations used without pertinence, with regurgitated praise from any reviewer available. Lapadite77 did not even paraphrase these overlong quotes or fragments from the source, which present nothing new or unique from what had previously been in the section and amounts to redundant guff. Using too many quotes is incompatible with encyclopedic writing. (]) A criticism or reception section is not meant to be a complete list of all praise or criticism, but rather to provide readers with a representative sample of how this album has been received. (]) Furthermore, whatever paraphrasing was done in this revision is poor and non-neutral, particularly the ''paragraph'' given to the ''Baltimore Sun'' reviewer, at least half of which comprises quoted material. Erroneous also was moving a paragraph on the album's rankings in critics' polls ''out'' of the "accolades" section ~~and adding a juicy, four-sentence quotation from a review by About.com, a questionable source (])~~. ] (]) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)		I feel it overloads the section with quotations used without pertinence, with regurgitated praise from any reviewer available. Lapadite77 did not even paraphrase these overlong quotes or fragments from the source, which present nothing new or unique from what had previously been in the section and amounts to redundant guff. Using too many quotes is incompatible with encyclopedic writing. (]) A criticism or reception section is not meant to be a complete list of all praise or criticism, but rather to provide readers with a representative sample of how this album has been received. (]) Furthermore, whatever paraphrasing was done in this revision is poor and non-neutral, particularly the ''paragraph'' given to the ''Baltimore Sun'' reviewer, at least half of which comprises quoted material, as does the four-sentence quotation from a review by About.com. Erroneous also was moving a paragraph on the album's rankings in critics' polls ''out'' of the "accolades" section. ] (]) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:45, 31 January 2015

Albums B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Alternative music Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Akyaqoayaiijx

--CactusBot (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Reviews section as per: Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews

| Reviews =

I will use these in the critical recpetion section at some point soon - I am in the middle of a massive rework of the Version 2.0 article. --Breakinguptheguy (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

not a sentence

At the beginning of the Promotion section, it sez: "The entire visual campaign for Version 2.0 was tailored to play off the album cover artwork, the icons designed to represent each single release, provided point-of-sale and the band's videogenic sensibility." This is not a sentence, and I couldn`t make enuf sense of it to turn it into one. Fp cassini (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan56's recent edits

Dan56, as I stated in the edit summary to the revert, you were removing multiple reviews added in prose from the album ratings box and while I'm augmenting/improving the article (which is disruptive at best); moreover, contrary to your arbitrary objection to quotes here, per the guideline WP:QUOTEFARM (as you cited), the quotes used are not long, comprise of "smaller portions of quotation", are "provided an appropriate context", they do not remotely "dominate the article" and much paraphrase is already used; "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". --Lapadite (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding About.com's reliability, there is a table of About critics linked in the very section you cited. The writer sourced in the article is considered reliable. --Lapadite (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

It is my contention that this revision by Lapadite77 does not improve the article, for the reasons I've outlined below in my comments. This is the article's current revision to that section. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Oppose this addition/revision. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I feel it overloads the section with quotations used without pertinence, with regurgitated praise from any reviewer available. Lapadite77 did not even paraphrase these overlong quotes or fragments from the source, which present nothing new or unique from what had previously been in the section and amounts to redundant guff. Using too many quotes is incompatible with encyclopedic writing. (WP:QUOTEFARM) A criticism or reception section is not meant to be a complete list of all praise or criticism, but rather to provide readers with a representative sample of how this album has been received. (WP:NIF#Red flags) Furthermore, whatever paraphrasing was done in this revision is poor and non-neutral, particularly the paragraph given to the Baltimore Sun reviewer, at least half of which comprises quoted material, as does the four-sentence quotation from a review by About.com. Erroneous also was moving a paragraph on the album's rankings in critics' polls out of the "accolades" section. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories: