Talk:Carnival Is Forever

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Unreliable review and non-ratings in the ratings template

I'm starting a discussion about 66.102.129.154 adding a review from an unreliable source and adding a non-rating to the album ratings template. It was suggested by one of the admins from WP:ANEW that I start this discussion prior to continuing to remove these reviews or continuing with a case at WP:ANI.

Can anyone demonstrate how Dave Schalek is in any way a reliable musical reviewer? His About.com biography here does not indicate in any way that he is a professional music reviewer. About.com is already questionable as a source; this consensus determined that About.com reviewers should pass WP:RS on their own (ie they are not reliable solely because they write for About.com). I see nothing about Schalek that indicates he is in any way reliable.

Adding non-ratings to a ratings template is nonsensical, and attempting to boil a non-rated review down to "favorable" violates WP:OR. This discussion supports this, as does the Template documentation at Template:Album ratings (which nowhere mentions that it is acceptable to add "favorable"/"unfavorable"/"mixed"/whatever personal interpretation an editor wants to create for an unrated review). There is nothing wrong with the review itself, and I support anyone wanting to add this review to the prose of the Reception section (which does not currently exist, but should be created at some point).

I am re-removing these from the template; they should not be re-added unless someone can demonstrate unequivocally that Schalek is reliable and/or that non-ratings being added to the ratings template is explicitly stated somewhere on Wikipedia to be okay. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]