Talk:New Again

On The New Again Reviews

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)

Maybe he just doesn't like this genre? I do agree though, StrangeGlue is pretty dubious. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:03, 29 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)

Now that's just your opinion. AP.net really shouldn't be used anywhere, half of their reviews user submitted and the ones that aren't, what credibility do they have? Anyway, this is an issue to be discussed, which i can't be bothered bringing up in the correct places. So for now, the reviews should stay unless you have a legitamate reason - ie. Those bullshit reviews they post for a laugh. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WikiProject Albums, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." How does AP.net not fit those qualifications? Fezmar9 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A few more things... It was suggested that because Jason Tate "hates TBS" that this review is biased. However, the review posted on AP.net was written by Chris Fallon. Tate had actually previously written a positive review for Louder Now. Keep in mind that while editing you should use a neutral point of view. Removing negative reviews of an album does not comply with this policy. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think absolutepunk.net reviews should be used anywhere either. Especially when it comes about Taking Back Sunday. I've added myself negative reviews from respectable and professional sources - like Spin and Rolling Stone - and even though I disagree with them, I respect their opinions because I see them as respectable and reliable sources. I don't want to enter in the specifics of this, but I don't think a reviewer (Fallon) who implied one month prior his New Again's review that he'd do a harsh review about them as anything reliable.

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)

Obviously a vandal has played around with it, good old fans think they're doing something worthwile, just annoying people though. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:54, 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)

Why thank you. I actually didn't realize how positive the reviews were for the album... but that's Wikipedia for ya. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:25, 17 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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Again/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.	Remove the comma: New Again, was recorded in October The commas make it a little jarring, maybe break it into multiple sentences or try to reword it: Matthew Fazzi, formerly of Facing New York, who had joined the band in early 2008, was praised by vocalist Adam Lazzara and the group's manager for incorporating new instruments into the group's sound. Probably just me being stupid, but I don't understand this (after the final track was recorded, or after the final track what? (rereading, i think you just have to take out the commas for it to make sense)): After the final track, "Everything Must Go," was made available for streaming, the band toured the US in May and June. The 'as well as reaching' part of this sentence sounds off - New Again sold 48,000 copies in its first week of release, charting at number 7 on the Billboard 200, as well as reaching the top 10 on several other Billboard charts. I think it should be was instead of were - In December, Rubano said the group were in Let's break this up into multiple sentences: Lazzara sorted his life out following addiction issues, and the end of his engagement to Chauntelle DuPree of Eisley, and moved to another town, married, and had a child.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the infobox, the studios might look a little better with linebreaks between each one?
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.	Did it? - The album is set to be released on vinyl in April 2017.
	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.	Took me a minute to realize that the band took one of the photos, and that was their account. All good there though.
	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)