Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 3

message: This was a toughie. I really have a hard time with any article that saturates itself with quotes; in an ideal world, the information should be summarized and then strongly cited. So that's what I tried to do...I removed most of the quotations, reworded the information and added cites so people could read it word-for-word if they so desired. I really think this is easier to read and doesn't make the article come across as a magazine article (something I've been taking issue with). But for records' sake, I'm copying all the quotes here (not necessarily in order):
:People magazine regarded the album as a "passable debut" and said that it showed Simpson was a "credible talent in her own right" (August 2, 2004, page 41)
:All Music Guide said it was "an unexpectedly strong debut". 
:Blender magazine said in its review that "there isn't a song on her debut that doesn't paint in huge strokes" (September 2004)
:Billboard said that it was "chock-full of catchy songs." (August 7, 2004)
:"edgy, soulful and real". 
:Rolling Stone, for example, called it "mundane" with a "predictable script". (August 5, 2004)
:the BBC said that "half the album ... feels self indulgent and lacks substance". 
:IGN.com, in a mixed review, called it "by-the-books, generic (and at times bland) pop/rock". (September 17, 2004)
:"a never-ending battle against adolescent insecurity."
:"American Sweetheart is tragic and blasted and pissed-off and pathetic and desperate and sad; Autobiography is all those things, plus it has Fruit Stripe bubblegrunge guitars and insanely chewy melodies and an ear-tickling production job." In addition, it praised Simpson's singing, stating: "...Simpson can pack so much contradictory emotion into a single line—a single word—that the music can barely contain it." 2
:the New York Times, in its review of the album, said that Autobiography "is a thoroughly calculated package, aiming for the same audience that embraces Avril Lavigne and Pink."
:The Village Voice review described the song as "a compact masterpiece of wrist-pumping Joan Jett rock candy".
:Reactions to the song have been mixed; People magazine called it "insipid" in its review of the album.
I really want to keep this in the article but I can't find a cite! So I just removed it for now.
:People magazine said that Simpson "succumbs to cliché" on this song.
See above.
:described by People magazine as a "bubbly" song that "should have Hilary Duff worried".
So many quotes, so few cites.
:was described by People magazine as "Joan Jett-esque", but in its review, People also said that Simpson "doesn't quite nail" the song's "tough rocker-chick pose".
Sigh.
:However, IGN, in its review of the album, called it a "slow-to-mid-tempo shuffle that actually features some poignant imagery", but "falls victim to the run-of-the-mill production and eventually simplistic lyrics."
There...Don't think I missed any.
::I don't think it was a good idea to summarize and/or remove the above quotes.  Your definition of an ideal world greatly differs from mine.  In my ideal world, the information should be kept in the article.  It creates a professional tone to the article, if you don't believe me...read the article out loud.  It sounds like an informative article giving specific instances of the album's impact throughout the narrative.  I don't see how some people, I won't mention names, can find the reading uncomfortable or cumbersome.  Unless, english isn't their first language or something.  Shard 02:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: This was apparently the subject of a huge dispute. I think I've come to a compromise: I left in more information and was more specific about the small spike at week 12. The rest of it I condensed. I honestly don't think anybody needs a 17 week play-by-play of album sales and chart positions; I have yet to see this on any other article and it could even technically qualify for original research (since it was admitted that this information was recorded as it was released...not to mention there are no cites backing it up).
::Your compromise isn't satisfactory.  Everyking's version displayed valuable statistics and data.  A citation isn't necessary.  Would you delete the number of people killed in World War II because every source has a different number?  Shard 02:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that the week by week chart positions are valuable statistics and data. I would delete them all and simply state "Debuted at No 1. Went Platinum very quickly." The rest is pure fancruft. I mean I am a fan of certain bands and the only thing that interests me is the highest position that the CD reached, and even then I don't try and add this information to wikipedia, instead I summarise in some way all the chart postitions worldwide and ideally find a citation to support this. Also the week by week chart positions are original research. By all means publish the information somewhere else and then link to it for those that are interested. - Drstuey 06:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album and charts success 

message: This entire section needs better citing IMO. I left it alone for now, but this is just for future reference.
: Personally I think the entire section should be deleted because none of the TV appearances mentioned are notable. - Drstuey 06:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: Really, while there is certainly nothing wrong with citing sources, Everyking's version seems like one fine example of overdoing this. This is the Wikipedia, here we have articles. (And remember, too many quotes in a text will get you bad marks at school as well.) For quotes, we have Wikiquotes. So I clearly support the less-quotes-version.
Also, @Everyking, certainly you are not serious when requesting changes to be done "one by one", because you "can't deal with all this at once". Really, how long have you been here? We encourage people not to clutter up an articles history, and if you really cannot handle "so many" changes at once, the WP:Sandbox is probably a better place for you to play. -- AlexR 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support the Renee less-quotes version. Personally I would take even more of the quotes out. None of them are remotely interesting or useful, they are mindless fluff that you would find in a TV Guide magazine rather than quotes you would find in an encyclopedia. - Drstuey 06:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to point out all the quotes you deem as "mindless fluff"?  They are all crucial to the article. Shard 06:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aren't there a wee bit to many quotes now?

message: Noting that the three revert rule can now be used as a basis for blocking anyone if they get out of control, I have unprotected the page. The reasonable discussion going on here suggests to me that hopefully such measures will not be necessary, though.
Apparently there is also the temp version, which I have not done anything with. In the end, whatever version ends up on this page, the temp page should be redirected to the article and/or moved out of the article namespace. --Michael Snow 17:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection