Talk:Carnival Is Forever

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)