![]() | New Again has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 5, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I do not believe that the Strangeglue review should be used in the albums review, due to the facts that the writer of the review Aidan Williamson is not a very creditable music reviewer of this genre. After reviewing many of the reviews he has done on the past, the majority of reviews he has done on albums of this genre tend to be extremely biased. It seems as if he gives albums of this genre bad reviews on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.47.113 ( talk) 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The review by AbsolutePunk.com should also not be used due to the fact that Jason Tate, the CEO of AbsolutePunk.com, hates TBS, so most likely this review is extremely biased also. I read it and I think it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.47.113 ( talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think that "The Tune" review can be considered a professional review either. It's from a blogspot website and I honestly never heard of them before. What I can't really understand is how a professional review like the one ChartAttack did not being considered as good enough. There's this user called Krrjjk4 who deleted the link for ChartAttack's review for the following reason "(Removed a faulty review whose internal link was faked. Again.)". What I can prove that it's a lie, here's the internal link to the review: http://www.chartattack.com/reviews/70773/taking-back-sunday-new-again It works, and the review is coming from what I see as a very respectable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahfawkes ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Wanted to add the review section is possibly sabotaged... the popmatters review that is linked is actually a 6/10 but it is listed here on wikipedia as an 8/10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.0.4 ( talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've talk with the PopMatters reviewer and he said that the mistake is on the website. He reviewed and gave the rating 8/10. It's on the comments on the review and metacritic consider it the same way. Read the PopMatters review or search the reviewer on twitter or by email if you don't believe me. It's a very positive review about the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiscene ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So, I did a review of this record and I've got published on absolutepunk as an user review. I think it's a very in depth and thought out review, I've worked my ass off on it. I'm trying to find a venue where my review can be qualified as good enough to be on wiki. I find the fact of the review been on ap.net hillarious, since it's well known the bias the website has with this band. I have published the review on my tumbler and my sputnikmusic account too.
So I'll be placing the review on the links, but if the mods don't think it's worthy of staying, I'd promptly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiscene ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I like how you've organized the page, KIAC. And I think that the reviews are well balanced accordingly with metacritic. Good job. Antiscene ( talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's an amazing record to tell you the truth. I came here to add the Daisy's Spin review and just realize it you got the PopMatters review wrong. The reviewer himself told me it's an 8/10. Look at the review's comments or ask him at his twitter: http://twitter.com/HystericalUses. Are you ok with me fixing it? Antiscene ( talk) 05:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kees08 ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Only quotes, so its all good. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
I addressed the comments you put On Hold in these edits. [1] [2] [3] Yeepsi ( talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Checked the sources today. Sorry this took so long, it really got a bit out of hand...combination of IRL busyness and lack of motivation to complete the review for some reason. Quality work as always, thanks for your work in the pop punk scene! Kees08 (Talk) 21:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | New Again has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 5, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I do not believe that the Strangeglue review should be used in the albums review, due to the facts that the writer of the review Aidan Williamson is not a very creditable music reviewer of this genre. After reviewing many of the reviews he has done on the past, the majority of reviews he has done on albums of this genre tend to be extremely biased. It seems as if he gives albums of this genre bad reviews on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.47.113 ( talk) 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The review by AbsolutePunk.com should also not be used due to the fact that Jason Tate, the CEO of AbsolutePunk.com, hates TBS, so most likely this review is extremely biased also. I read it and I think it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.47.113 ( talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think that "The Tune" review can be considered a professional review either. It's from a blogspot website and I honestly never heard of them before. What I can't really understand is how a professional review like the one ChartAttack did not being considered as good enough. There's this user called Krrjjk4 who deleted the link for ChartAttack's review for the following reason "(Removed a faulty review whose internal link was faked. Again.)". What I can prove that it's a lie, here's the internal link to the review: http://www.chartattack.com/reviews/70773/taking-back-sunday-new-again It works, and the review is coming from what I see as a very respectable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahfawkes ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Wanted to add the review section is possibly sabotaged... the popmatters review that is linked is actually a 6/10 but it is listed here on wikipedia as an 8/10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.0.4 ( talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've talk with the PopMatters reviewer and he said that the mistake is on the website. He reviewed and gave the rating 8/10. It's on the comments on the review and metacritic consider it the same way. Read the PopMatters review or search the reviewer on twitter or by email if you don't believe me. It's a very positive review about the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiscene ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So, I did a review of this record and I've got published on absolutepunk as an user review. I think it's a very in depth and thought out review, I've worked my ass off on it. I'm trying to find a venue where my review can be qualified as good enough to be on wiki. I find the fact of the review been on ap.net hillarious, since it's well known the bias the website has with this band. I have published the review on my tumbler and my sputnikmusic account too.
So I'll be placing the review on the links, but if the mods don't think it's worthy of staying, I'd promptly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiscene ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I like how you've organized the page, KIAC. And I think that the reviews are well balanced accordingly with metacritic. Good job. Antiscene ( talk) 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's an amazing record to tell you the truth. I came here to add the Daisy's Spin review and just realize it you got the PopMatters review wrong. The reviewer himself told me it's an 8/10. Look at the review's comments or ask him at his twitter: http://twitter.com/HystericalUses. Are you ok with me fixing it? Antiscene ( talk) 05:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kees08 ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Only quotes, so its all good. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
I addressed the comments you put On Hold in these edits. [1] [2] [3] Yeepsi ( talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Checked the sources today. Sorry this took so long, it really got a bit out of hand...combination of IRL busyness and lack of motivation to complete the review for some reason. Quality work as always, thanks for your work in the pop punk scene! Kees08 (Talk) 21:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)