Talk:Coin Coin Chapter Three: River Run Thee

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Anthony Fantano's review
Anthony Fantano's review of the album should be in the article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. He post this review on YouTube, which is a self-published source. Self-published sources are considered as unreliable (WP:RSSELF and WP:ALBUMAVOID). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes due to the previous consensus of the 2021 RfC: There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. In the article, the source is used as such. If we want to uproot this consensus, why is specifically this article the place? Also, please see the discussion here. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to start this RfC here then at WT:ALBUMS because the disagreement happened over here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes per previous consensus. I don't see why that shouldn't stand, especially after how long those discussions were to get to this point. QuietHere (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No. YouTube videos are not generally reliable sources, and I see no reason to think this guy's are any better than a hundred other YouTube channels, or that his work is subject to editorial control and fact-checking as is required for a source to be reliable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the preexisting consensus that Fantano is a relevant SME. I'd be open to arguments that his view is undue for this specific article on the basis of the range of other sources available, the genre of this work being outside Fantano's actually subject-matter experience, or the like, but "it's self-published on Youtube" is a moot argument at this point: we can use SME's self-published work. signed,Rosguill talk 00:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes (Firstly Rosguill is correct: self-published SMEs are permissible case-by-case and youtube here is just a distribution channel- it's moot.) Related - it looks like the outcome here - regardless of what it may be - would not require changes to the consensus(es) from the 2021 RFC above. That closer wrote comments which to me suggest contextual review is appropriate in subsequent discussions as this one. Along those lines it appears the article only uses a single sentence, neutrally worded and properly attributed and so to me it seems fine to keep it. --N8wilson 🔔 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No - generally try to avoid YouTuber sources. Sergecross73   msg me  04:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes per existing consensus regarding Fantano here. It appears we are still woefully behind the curve when it comes to this issue. Fantano has been widely recognized as an influential music critic and, provided his SME view is properly attributed, there should be no issue including it in the article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes -- per existing consensus about Fantano's relevant expertise in music reviews. TheAmazingPeanuts is reading RSSELF incorrectly, as Fantano does not "claim to be an expert in a certain field". Rather, other reliable sources consider him a notable reviewer in the field. The fact that his review is on youtube is totally irrelevant. Alyo  (chat·edits) 19:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Alyo's comment that "reliable sources consider him a notable reviewer in the field. The fact that his review is on youtube is totally irrelevant." Originoa (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fantano is an SME, as recognized in the 2021 RfC mentioned above. Distributing on YouTube shouldn't be disqualifying to those self-publishing, in my opinion. SWinxy (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)