Talk:Partie Traumatic

Pitchfork link
I'm removing the link to the Pitchfork Media review because, simply put, it's not a review. Simply because a well-known website has an opinion about something and attaches a number to that opinion doesn't make the opinion a "review." I'm not saying that we need to be arbiters of literary skill or talent critics, but certainly we can call a spade a spade, take a look at Pitchfork's numbered picture, and decide it doesn't belong next to the actual reviews? - Chardish (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it does belong. Pitchfork is one of the major sources for this type of music, so their evaluation, such as it is, ought to be included.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the Pitchfork link, apart from a number, even constitute an "evaluation"? I'm not going to assume that no thought went into what they posted; I just fail to see how what they posted is anything remotely like a "professional review." - Chardish (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not our place to guess at their motives, we can just report what they publish. And yes, their rating is an evaluation, and the writers are professionals. A number of people have criticized their review style, but that doesn't change the fact that they are one of the most prominent sources for this kind of music.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that I'm not making a judgment on the merits of what Pitchfork published. I'm calling into question whether it's even a review or not. Some might argue that "if Pitchfork says it's a review, it's a review" but I think that fails the common sense test pretty easily. - Chardish (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also worth mentioning that Metacritic doesn't link to Pitchfork's cartoon, even though Pitchfork is routinely cited as a review source on Metacritic. One could easily infer that Metacritic doesn't count Pitchfork's cartoon as a review. - Chardish (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly this is something that will require the opinions of different users to be resolved.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll set up an RfC. - Chardish (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment re: Pitchfork link
Pitchfork is a notable source of music reviews. Their review of Partie Traumatic consists of a negative score, a picture of two dogs, the word "sorry", and an emoticon. Should this page be listed as a "professional review" in the article's infobox? 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I agree its not much of a review, it did receive a number rating. WP:ALBUM includes Pitchfork among reviews that can be included in infoboxes. At least one article in Advertising Age, a reliable source, cites the negative Pitchfork review in relation to the album. dissolve  talk  16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course this is a professional review, and has as much right to inclusion as any other. It discusses the album in the manner the reviewer saw fit, and gave it a specific rating. 86.44.23.211 (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

These are my thoughts exactly. We shouldn't judge what Pitchfork puts out, we can only report on it. And as they're one of the major sources for this kind of music, they ought to be included here.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)