Talk:Teen Dream

Reviews
I have just reinserted into the infobox the Seattle Times' unfavorable review of this album, because the reason for its removal seemed POV. I do however think that the infobox is crowded with reviews and maybe we should set up a "Critical reception" section for this article...Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not a POV edit; it was an edit predicated on the fact that 82% of the reviews have been positive, and that Metacritic shows 82/100; here, however, if all of the reviews are to be averaged, the result is 7.2. That is to say, that these reviews underrepresent the actual reception of this album by an entire point because of POV edits meant to discredit it, which is ridiculous. POV works both ways--here it's clearly working the other way. Neither Hot Press NOR Seattle Times are used often for music reviews--if they were, I might not bother to point this all out. But they're not, they're fringe sources at best. Find a reliable source like Paste Magazine or Uncut or BBC Music--and what you'll find is that the ratings are not outliers like Hot Press. For the time being, unless you can give me a good justification not to, I'm replacing Hot Press with Uncut. Let's discuss further. 137.22.96.193 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. That works for me, though your tone could be a tad more cordial, and you could sign your comment. Then, I'd be super happy.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that "Neither Hot Press NOR Seattle Times are used often for music reviews... they're fringe sources at best" is ridiculously POV. Go over at WP:ALBUMS and try and convince them that a paper of record and a 30 year old magazine are not worth it. Also, the Metacritic score can only go so far. 1. It often neglects major, important publications like Time, Newsweek, and The Times, and 2. Some of the sources used there would not meet WP:N on Wikipedia, e.g. Dusted. As it stands, this has a basic average of 76 and a weighted one in favour of the important historical publications (what Metacritic does) of over 80. It's fine. 89.243.176.58 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also corrected some refs. The Mojo 195 is issue not page for example. 89.243.176.58 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times' music reviews are often wildly outside the mainstream--and with good reason, because they are not primarily a music publication. Beyond that, the Seattle Times is not a paper of record anywhere outside of Seattle. Time and Newsweek are excluded because of their mercurial reviewing habits and yes, (undeniably) fading cultural relevance, to the point that they're 'important' only because once upon a time they commanded some measure of prestige. No longer. If by the Times you mean the New York Times, then you're wrong; check Vampire Weekend's Contra page or the XX's xx page on Metacritic and you'll see both include a review from the newspaper, which also has a sketchy reviewing record as far as indie output goes, but is vastly better than Time and Newsweek. Furthermore and finally, stating that neither Hot Press NOR the Seattle Times are used often for music reviews is hardly POV; it is a statement of fact. Pick five albums, any albums, check the professional reviews, and tell me whether you see Allmusic, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Spin, NME, Mojo, and yes, Uncut more often or whether it's Hot Chip and Seattle Times that you keep on seeing. I reckon it'll be the former. And you see what I did there? See how I listed Rolling Stone and Mojo even though they turned in anything but glowing reviews? Perhaps it means that there isn't any bias other than a bias toward the credibility of the article. The difference, of course, is that Rolling Stone and Mojo are authoritative music-oriented publications, something the Seattle Times is not and which Hot Press is only within Ireland. As for Metacritic, the raw average right now is 78, and that's without factoring in the 4.5/5 Allmusic review (83 weighted). Which means it's still being underrepresented here. But as you say, "It's fine"--which is not deigning at all, is it? 137.22.96.193 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before this descends into namecalling and soiling the reputation of culturally-significant publications with reviewers who've seen everything from the punk wars, post-punk, Duran Duran, Nirvana etc., I'd like to say that "neither Hot Press NOR the Seattle Times are used often for music reviews is hardly POV" is exactly POV. Just because the majority of articles don't use them, doesn't mean they're unimportant or worse than Paste and Pitchfork who are less than 10 years old. In fact, Wikipedia and us at WP:ALBUMS encourage the use of papers of record over new, trendy mags with scenes to uphold. We also encourage the use of other reputable sources for POV spread, often minor ones which need to be represented as well. I hope that clears things up. I've checked the article and it seems OK to me in regards to all Wikipedia guidelines. I'd also like to point out that we do not use the Metacritic score to create the Professional reviews average; it's just a nice general marker. PRB88 (T) 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'll do
The reviews keep constantly changing. I have extensive experience of writing FA album articles and implementing review stuff at WP:ALBUMS. I'll have a look at the available sources and add them to the reviews, so that it has a nice average and a nice POV spread (outliers included as minor views need representation too). I'll be back ASAP. PRB88 (T) 13:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I prefer the A.V. Club rating over The Phoenix is because the former is more of a national publication while the latter is more of a New England paper. Shouldn't we be trying for publications of the broadest scope? And I'm curious what the rationale is for adding The Guardian...Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Phoenix has much more cultural clout. It started in 1966, about 30 years earlier than AV and its parent company is much prestigious in media that The Onion. As for The Guardian, we need POV spread which means two outliers (check) and everything in between (check), from 6/10 to 7/10 to 8/10 to 9/10. That's what non-fanboy neutral POV means. PRB88 (T) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point on The Phoenix, and am for it. As far as your reasoning for the Guardian, I think I understand. But would you mind directing me to a particular WP link for a little background?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a specific album reviews POV guideline and I wouldn't want it to be written, as I think common sense should prevail in these cases. But for a general one see WP:POV and its derivatives. Most of my actions are governed by lots and lots of discussions and featured processes. Try and get involved at WP:ALBUMS. For example, on the talk page we recently discussed the moving of reviews to a prose section with a template. We'd like to get as many people, including IPs, involved in all discussions, not just that one. It's the only way this project will go forward and be inclusive. PRB88 (T) 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)