Talk:We Shall All Be Healed

Fair use rationale for Image:WeShallAllBeHealed.jpg
Image:WeShallAllBeHealed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section really needs work. It's incredibly vague - it describes different opinions on the album, but not once does it attach a particular reviewer or review source to the opinions. It needs more direct quotes, fewer weasel words, and more organization in how it describes the opinions. 24.98.180.87 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are a few references to the Pitchfork and Allmusic reviews, with plenty of generalisations and original research mixed in.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)