User talk:HotHat/Archived Talk of 2013-03

In Time
I added the singles and made a few minor changes but otherwise the article looks great. I'm pretty sure the January 21 release date on Allmusic is a mistake but I left it alone for now. Eric444 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: The Truth About Love
I've reverted your edits to this article. Looking at the articles you've edited, you need to avoid bloating articles with quotefarm sections. For an album article, the critical reception should be an overview, not a Metacritic-like all-encompassing quotefarm. The aim is to write as concise as possible without leaving out any pertinent information. A criticism or appraisal that is common among a number of critics of the album for example should be represented by summarizing one or two in the section, rather than adding quotes from various critics saying the same thing. More discretion will let the readers understand one viewpoint offered by critics instead of bludgeoning it over their heads with too many that have essentially the same viewpoint. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in seeing an ideal example of the above, you can look at the article Aaliyah (album)'s critical reception section before its FA review and what it looks like now after these concerns about the section's prose were addressed. Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Use it or lose it" does not offer any rationale for adding a score that is directly elaborated on in the section's prose. And Spin is clearly a more notable reviewer; notability should be taken into account, not what grading system or scale they use. Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The ratings template is a stylistic option, not a mandatory element of this section. It is up to the editors of the section on how, if at all, to implement it. Per WP:MOS, stylistic preferences not subject to guidelines or discussions defer to the primary contributor. The only part of what I originally wrote to you that is a guideline and should be adhered to is WP:QUOTEFARM (which addresses what you're asking about). If you are the primary contributor of Lumineers, use the template to your liking, but quote farms should be avoided: stand-alone quote sections, too many quotes (especially consecutive quotes) makes for poor reading, listing them paragraph-by-paragraph, etc. The reception section should be an overview, summarizing briefly, paraphrasing/summarizing being preferred. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really an important issue, just pick whichever serves a better represenation/illustration of the overall reception. If you were to model it after Metacritic, then there would 4/9 mixed scores and 5/9 positive, so around 40 (4 mixed scores) or around 60% (6 positive scores) respectively. Ham&High appears to be a weekly paid newspaper here, so if I were to cut down on the quotes, I'd remove this relatively unimportant critic, and condense the rest to one or two sentences briefly summarizing the main points for each critic, using quotation-sentences only when I am unable to paraphrase the critic. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Roughstock, etc.
Roughstock, Got Country Online, and Country Universe have been considered reliable in the past. The content of all three sites is made by an editorial staff (in fact, I write for Roughstock), and those sites have been used without dispute on GA-class articles such as Don't You Wanna Stay, Rodney Atkins, and Sparks Fly (song). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Same Trailer Different Park
Thank you for expanding the article. As TenPoundHammer said above, Roughstock, Got Country Online and Country Universe have previously been considered reliable sources and are used in many articles. Eric444 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Bellow (album)
Looks good. I just made a few minor changes. Eric444 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)