Talk:Sputnikmusic

Articles can self-reference the website and it's okay if the interviewed person isn't the founder

Some Sputnikmusic members are "Staff" members. As in they help run the website and are recognized by Metacitic as professional reviewers. Their words aren't just random opinions on the site, but rather key to site's operation. Arguably, they have more control over Sputnik's operation than the site's creator, so to delete 30 sources because "oops only interviews from the site's creator counts for some reason!" is rediculous. The Pitchfork and Consequence of Sound articles operate similarly. They get to self-reference their website with sources to show off their Staff lists. Please treat this article accordingly. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mrmoustache14 Hi, I have never removed "30 sources". I only removed two: see the edit [1]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Ferwerda, a pseudonym for Walter Heinrich

I know this is true, he's a 30something white man from Fresh Meadows, Queens. However, I'm finding it difficult to provide a perfect citation for this. Does anyone have information on "Jeremy Ferwerda"? BezosFanYo (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Walter Heinrich" is the confirmed true identity of Jeremy Ferwerda. Just need to find some WP:RS to confirm. BezosFanYo (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Refactoring of article

Hi @User:Mrmoustache14, my reason for my refactoring of the article is as follows:

Lead

• which distinguishes it against similar sites such as Pitchfork, Tiny Mix Tapes, Rate Your Music and IMDb. According to whom? If no references are provided, this is WP:Original research. Opinions should be attributed to a commentator.
• Sputnikmusic is a recognised source on the aggregate Metacritic. Misleading: There is no such thing as a "recognised source" on Metacritic, they simply use Sputnikmusic's reviews in their aggregation algorithm.
• Sputnikmusic provides a reference point for numerous other sites for the purposes of musical analysis, covering metal, punk, indie, rock, hip-hop, pop and other styles. Vague third-party claim: Which sites, and according to whom?

History

• Sputnikmusic was founded in January 2005 as an offshoot of the Mxtabs network, where album reviews appeared on the MusicanForums section. The site developed a stratification system to distinguish its professional Staff-generated content from its amateur User-generated content. Unsourced. Non-independent sources should only be used for simple facts, not entire paragraphs.
• In 2006, the site's Staff writers were recognised as a professional source by the aggregation site Metacritic Unsourced: the cited link does not mention the date 2006 or Staff writers in particular. Promotional wording: Metacritic does not use the label "professional source" nor "recognize" them.
• The site has since been recognised for its subjectively grounded review style Music reviews are by their own nature, subjective.
• credibility of its professional content, citing a Guardian article, and two books(which appear to be reliable WP:EXPERTSPS). However, they simply cite Sputnikmusic's reviews and does not comment on its credibility or professionality. It is original research to extract such promotional wording.
• the diversity of its opinions, cited to a book with an obscure author and publisher, not reliable.
• extent of its coverage Unsupported: the sources simply says "Sputnikmusic is a great site for reviews". That's it.
• comprehensive database, cited to a Master's thesis with an obscure author. This is not WP:EXPERTSPS.
• The website has a diverse userbase, again a single offhand comment in the unreliable book source.

• I do not have access to the sources cited in The ethnomusicologist Jorge Mercado Méndez references Sputnikmusic as an 'acclaimed' review source adjacent to Pitchfork, while Giuseppe Catani cites Sputnikmusic's Alex Robertson alongside the NME.

Stratification and rating systems

• Non-independent sources should only be used for simple facts, not entire paragraphs.

Album of the Year

• My search of ["Sputnik Music" "Album of the Year" -site:sputnikmusic.com] does not show that this is WP:DUE for inclusion, since there are no sources citing or reporting on this series of articles.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority of these suggestions express specific concerns with promotional word or similar criticisms that could be easily addressed by individual rephrasing and do not seem to support the erasure of entire sections of the page or unrelated sources. Your original grounds for deleting the majority of the page emphasised unreliable sources, but of the sources you have access to, only one is singled out as unreliable (and, since that source is not self-published, the WP:EXPERTSPS argument of does not apply to it). Several of the points flagged suggest a valid, constructive basis for editing but provide little ground for refactoring the whole article.

To engage with a few of these points specifically,

• "There is no such thing as a "recognised source" on Metacritic, they simply use Sputnikmusic's reviews in their aggregation algorithm"

As per the Metacritic website, sources are curated from a "diverse group of highly respected critics", which implies recognition as such. All sources used by Metacritic are recognised sources per the vernacular understanding of 'recognised', and there is nothing on Metacritic or in the article to suggest reading 'recognised' as a specific term.

• "Vague third-party claim: Which sites, and according to whom?"

Practically the entire body of sources support the inclusion of this line, though the vagueness of phrasing is

• "According to whom? If no references are provided, this is WP:Original research. Opinions should be attributed to a commentator."

Stating the presence or absence of faculties on a website is neither opinion nor research. If the issue here is that there are no sources cited to affirm that Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes do not allow user-submitted content whereas Rate Your Music and IMDb do not contain professionally cited content, it could just as easily have been flagged as such rather than removed wholesale.

• "Unsourced: the cited link does not mention the date 2006 or Staff writers in particular. Promotional wording: Metacritic does not use the label "professional source" nor "recognize" them."

The history of Sputnikmuskc's inclusion on Metacritic can be very easily verified on the Metacritic website

• "Music reviews are by their own nature, subjective."

A moot point that disregards the clear emphasis implied for Sputnikmusic's coverage relative to other sources. Rephrase if this is an issue.

• "My search of ["Sputnik Music" "Album of the Year" -site:sputnikmusic.com] does not show that this is WP:DUE for inclusion"

WP:DUE is concerned with the overemphasis of minority opinions misrepresenting the accepted information or narrative on the articles to which they pertain. Since Album of the Year lists are aggregated from the site's entire staff roster for each respective year, this argument is moot.

I have made a handful of edits in line with the concerns flagged, and would recommend you approach further reservations in the form of instance-specific edits unless you believe there is still a basis for refactoring the whole article. TwentyWhiteTents (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For context, when I refactored the article, it looked like this: [2]. Que Publishing is an obscure publishing company with no reputation for fact checking, nor is the author a recognized expert. However, I made the analysis above to point out problems with the new, expanded version of this article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps the Metacritic statement could be rephrased as "Sputnikmusic's reviews are used by Metacritic's aggregation algorithm", which is clearer and less promotional.
• no sources cited to affirm that Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes do not allow user-submitted content whereas Rate Your Music and IMDb. According to policy, original interpretation and comparisons are still original research , even if all the facts are correct: see the section WP:SYNTH.
• As a reader, I am still unsure what a "subjective emphasis" is, since reviews are meant to be subjective. I don't have full access to the book, only snippets. Does it mean that the reviews feel more personal?
• WP:UNDUE is also about the level of detail. It says Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.(emphasis mine) Album of the Year is an aspect of the site which is not covered by any other sources other than Sputnikmusic itself, so it is undue for inclusion.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging involved editor @ResonantDistortion @Shamus248 Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

what did i do? Shamus248 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit here: [3], where much of the draft was rewritten to be in its current state. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Perhaps the Metacritic statement could be rephrased as "Sputnikmusic's reviews are used by Metacritic's aggregation algorithm", which is clearer and less promotional."

rephrased to "'Sputnikmusic is one of many recognised sources used by the aggregate Metacritic."

• "Album of the Year is an aspect of the site which is not covered by any other sources other than Sputnikmusic itself, so it is undue for inclusion."

This misinterprets WP:UNDUE, as it concerns the content of the site itself and not a topic where multiple strands of consensus are at play to begin with. Review WP:UNDUE's example of not affording flat-earth conspiracy theory representation on the earth wiki page, as this does not represent general consensus on what constitutes 'earth'. There are no outside opinions or competing sources on whether or not Sputnikmusic's Album of the Year selection actually constitutes Sputnikmusic's Album of the Year selection because this is an obvious moot point. For your argument to stand, there would have to be sourced, distinct counter-perspective about the subject matter of the Album of the Year feature or its pertinence to the website -- unsurprisingly enough, neither seem to have been called into question externally.

I think it might be more helpful to reference pages for parallel subject matter for a working precedent than to apply these rather strained readings of tenuously pertinent guidelines - please see Stereogum and Tiny Mix Tapes for similar examples. TwentyWhiteTents (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:UNDUE may not be a best fit for this situation, which is more about fringe theories. However, I believe my stance is backed up by the section that is further down WP:PROPORTION, where it suggests An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject as determined by reliable sources. It is clear that this Album of the Year is not of great importance since it has not gotten coverage in reliable sources, unlike, to give an exaggerated example, Oscars. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)