Talk:Blue Blood (X Japan album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Blood (X Japan album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701191249/http://jrockrevolution.com/2007/10/webzine/indies-explosion-the-early-history-of-x-japan-30 to http://jrockrevolution.com/2007/10/webzine/indies-explosion-the-early-history-of-x-japan-30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151023143246/http://jrockrevolution.com/2007/08/webzine/the-jrock-legend-x-japan-25 to http://jrockrevolution.com/2007/08/webzine/the-jrock-legend-x-japan-25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Blue Blood reception: balance and selection of sources
Re: Recent edit of Reception section. I removed Carl Begai's extensive quote from his personal blog, but the content was reinstated. Begai's article on Wikipedia might qualify him as a credible source, but I think the extensive 130-word excerpt is out of balance compared to reputable and impactful sources like Rolling Stone and Allmusic. (The line on Rolling Stone is a mere 12 words by comparison.) I feel this throws the section out of balance, and I propose editing Begai's section down to it first sentence only, which would still carry the intent of the citation. -- Any thoughts? GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone part is only 12 words because it is not a review, their article simply mentions one song on the album. That means Bagai and Allmusic are the only two reviews. We don't give sources more content in articles based on their level of fame, if they're reliable we add them. That has nothing to do with "balance." We should be looking for more reviews to add, not looking to remove some. Xfansd (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. The Carl Begai section caught my attention as a self-published source, because his critique had not been posted on one of his editorial websites like Bravewords. However, after reviewing that article more carefully, Begai seems to meet the criteria of "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". (Shame the Rolling Stone piece doesn't have more to pull from -- English reviews of Japanese rock in general are bare bones, esp if you exclude user generated forums like Encyclopaedia Metallum.) Looking for review sources, two more popped up: Ghost Cult and Metal Reviews. The former seems to rely almost entirely on Begai's text for its analysis, but the latter might be worth inclusion esp since it contains some criticisms. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be involved in determining whether or not those two are reliable, its just not something I'm comfortable doing. If I come across a source that I don't know for certain is accepted, I typically just go by if they have a Wikipedia article or not. Ghost Cult seems to qualify by having some editorial oversight, even if the site is laid out like a blog. But like you said it seems like they saw Begai's piece and decided to make their own to get "hits" on their website. Its because I feel this way when I see half-assed articles where I can tell they read Wikipedia articles for research that I shouldn't be deciding notability. Metal Reviews doesn't give any info about how its run so I would avoid it myself. There's someplace on Wikipedia where you can ask editors whether a site is reliable, and maybe there's archived discussions on those two sites already, but I don't know exactly where it is, maybe somewhere at Village pump. Xfansd (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)