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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dua Lipa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dua Lipa 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.Dua LipaWikipedia:WikiProject Dua LipaTemplate:WikiProject Dua LipaDua Lipa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Club Future Nostalgia is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
@Gagaluv1:. Why are you against using a score from this source? It is clearly "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", which makes it an exception, per WP:BLOG, as echoed by the only thoughtfully produced comments from @JG66: and @DannyMusicEditor:. That a formal consensus was not reached at the project talk page does not disqualify its use. The burden is on you to explain why. Erroneous edit summaries like "blogs are not reliable sources" and this cheap shot are not good enough. isento (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it wasn't a cheap shot it was the truth. You were overly combative and agressive in your responses. Second, it is not up to me to provide proof that he should not be included when you are literally the only person saying he should be. Which is especially interesting seeing that as of now you are the only person to have ever edited his article, and the only one who was for his inclusion in the original discussion, making me wonder if you have a personal connection to the subject. Find other people that agree with his inclusion, then we'll talk.Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The responsibility is on you to discuss the content you're reverting ! (WP:BRDD) See, now I'm actually "yelling", but it's more out of amusement than aggression. isento (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude by just jumping in here, but it does appear a consensus was reached on the Wikiproject Albums talk page. On the other hand, the ratings that are put into the table are meant to reflect the aggregate scores above it and the actual Critical reception prose. The writer did not write even close to enough in his work to be fitted in the prose, and is not listed in the aggregate sources so that is definitely a reason not to include, but as of now, I do not have an opinion on the subject matter. By the way, please try to keep things civil, and please stop edit warring. I don't want my GA nomination to fail because of this. Thanks LOVI3320:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No where at MOS:ALBUM or Template:Album ratings does it say the ratings put in the table are meant to reflect the aggregate scores. As for the prose, there are other scores (Digital Fix) that are not worked into the prose, nor is that a requirement. But Hull's Christgau-esque "capsule review", even if terse, can be worked into the prose. His score is actually representative of the general consensus (the 70 to 80 range). And don't worry about your nomination. This is a miniscule content dispute. isento (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isento, sorry about that, I meant to say "usually meant to" up there. If you can work his review into the prose, I don't see a reason why it can't be there. LOVI3320:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do have one question. I know this is a remix album, so it gets less attention, and I edit pop articles almost not at all, but this is Dua Lipa, a pop artist, we're talking about. Are you certain Tom Hull is the best you can scrape up? I'm not saying this condescendingly either, just as a genuine question. If you can't find any others to fill the table, as I only see eight, that's fine, but if there are more that could fill the space, I wouldn't recommend using him. Not that I'd stop you, it's not the end of the world if you use him. dannymusiceditoroops02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with including Tom Hull. Blogs are usually considered non-RS unless they're "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", etc. As I said in the WT:ALBUMS discussion, if we're spoilt for choice (inundated with album reviews), then there's no need for such expert-written blogs, but that doesn't seem to be the case here at all – it's not as if we're close to exhausting the 10-max rating threshold in the box.
Have to say, I'm continually confused by the approach to including album reviews and ratings. At some Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles, I've seen Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music removed because he hasn't written a dedicated review (eg, [1], [2]); same with ratings from The Rolling Stone Album Guide (eg, [3]); yet elsewhere, it's as if the Larkin and RS Album Guide ratings are almost ubiquitous, which can lead to an overreliance on album guides at the expense of reviews, I admit ... Hull's critique is very brief, but I don't see that as a problem either. It's not as if Hull's being included at the expense of one or two more optimal sources. If other, non-blog reviews come to light, then that would be a reason to exclude him. JG66 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was approved for GA on 24 October 2020. It is well-written, sourced, no copyvios seen.
This is good to go. Great work! :D Damian Vo (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)