Category:Album and single articles that lack a critical reception section

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. This category includes album and single articles that lack a critical reception section. Articles are placed here when they contain {{NCR}}. These sections are alternately called Critical reception, Critical response and Critical reaction, and all are acceptable. Once the article contains one, this tag can be removed.

NPOV guidelines:

Critical reception sections are largely made up of opinions and thus must follow certain neutrality guidelines. The policy at WP:NPOV provide detailed information about Wikipedia's neutrality policy, but the basic policy is:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

So critical reception sections should present a fair representation of the opinions of notable, respected critics. If an album was universally critically acclaimed, there may be few or no negative reviews. Alternately, if an album was generally panned, it may contain little to no positive reviews. Most albums will fall somewhere in the middle. Additionally, tabloids, little-known journals, reviewers outside of the music field (e.g. actors) or resources with an established bias should not be used. All opinions (without exception) should be followed by an inline citation according to WP:CITET.

Resources:

• Within the article:
  • The infobox may already contain quick reviews with stars and online links to reviews. This may be a good starting point for the Critical review section.
  • Critical responses may already be scattered throughout the article, or even in a (*gasp*) trivia section. These statements can be fished out and brought together.
• Online:
  • Metacritic.com is an excellent resource for online reviews, and usually contains a link to where the reviews can be found online.
  • Pitchfork.com, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, Billboard magazine, New Music Express, Robert Christgau, and All Africa all have online records of their magazine reviews.
  • End of the year lists appear in many magazines and websites, including Rolling Stone, Amazon.com and Time magazine.
• Subscription or for purchase:
  • EBSCOHost.com - Is an excellent resource for finding "dead tree" references. Your local college library, public library or other academic institution may have a subscription.