Talk:Club Future Nostalgia

Tom Hull
. Why are you against using a score from this source? It is clearly "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", which makes it an exception, per WP:BLOG, as echoed by the only thoughtfully produced comments from and. That a formal consensus was not reached at the project talk page does not disqualify its use. The burden is on you to explain why. Erroneous edit summaries like "blogs are not reliable sources" and this cheap shot are not good enough. isento (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, it wasn't a cheap shot it was the truth. You were overly combative and agressive in your responses. Second, it is not up to me to provide proof that he should not be included when you are literally the only person saying he should be. Which is especially interesting seeing that as of now you are the only person to have ever edited his article, and the only one who was for his inclusion in the original discussion, making me wonder if you have a personal connection to the subject. Find other people that agree with his inclusion, then we'll talk.Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL. The responsibility is on you to discuss the content you're reverting ! (WP:BRDD) See, now I'm actually "yelling", but it's more out of amusement than aggression. isento (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude by just jumping in here, but it does appear a consensus was reached on the Wikiproject Albums talk page. On the other hand, the ratings that are put into the table are meant to reflect the aggregate scores above it and the actual Critical reception prose. The writer did not write even close to enough in his work to be fitted in the prose, and is not listed in the aggregate sources so that is definitely a reason not to include, but as of now, I do not have an opinion on the subject matter. By the way, please try to keep things civil, and please stop edit warring. I don't want my GA nomination to fail because of this. Thanks  LOVI  33  20:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No where at MOS:ALBUM or Template:Album ratings does it say the ratings put in the table are meant to reflect the aggregate scores. As for the prose, there are other scores (Digital Fix) that are not worked into the prose, nor is that a requirement. But Hull's Christgau-esque "capsule review", even if terse, can be worked into the prose. His score is actually representative of the general consensus (the 70 to 80 range). And don't worry about your nomination. This is a miniscule content dispute. isento (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that, I meant to say "usually meant to" up there. If you can work his review into the prose, I don't see a reason why it can't be there. LOVI  33  20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Np. Sounds good. Done. isento (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Crazy what happens while you're at work. All I can say is take it easy, guys. It's just Wikipedia.  danny music editor  oops 02:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I do have one question. I know this is a remix album, so it gets less attention, and I edit pop articles almost not at all, but this is Dua Lipa, a pop artist, we're talking about. Are you certain Tom Hull is the best you can scrape up? I'm not saying this condescendingly either, just as a genuine question. If you can't find any others to fill the table, as I only see eight, that's fine, but if there are more that could fill the space, I wouldn't recommend using him. Not that I'd stop you, it's not the end of the world if you use him.  danny music editor  oops 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It really appears to be the only other scored review out there. Which is why the removal surprised me. isento (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with including Tom Hull. Blogs are usually considered non-RS unless they're "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", etc. As I said in the WT:ALBUMS discussion, if we're spoilt for choice (inundated with album reviews), then there's no need for such expert-written blogs, but that doesn't seem to be the case here at all – it's not as if we're close to exhausting the 10-max rating threshold in the box.
 * Have to say, I'm continually confused by the approach to including album reviews and ratings. At some Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles, I've seen Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music removed because he hasn't written a dedicated review (eg,, ); same with ratings from The Rolling Stone Album Guide (eg, ); yet elsewhere, it's as if the Larkin and RS Album Guide ratings are almost ubiquitous, which can lead to an overreliance on album guides at the expense of reviews, I admit ... Hull's critique is very brief, but I don't see that as a problem either. It's not as if Hull's being included at the expense of one or two more optimal sources. If other, non-blog reviews come to light, then that would be a reason to exclude him. JG66 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)