30 Seconds to Mars (2002) review

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 years ago
Several users on Wikipedia are working on the article related to the album 30 Seconds to Mars, released in 2002. These users were looking for professional review sources when they found out that AllMusic published a review of the album at the time of its release, which is different from the current one. The review was written by Jason D. Taylor, who gave the album a rating of 4.5/5 stars as the archives of Metacritic prove (thanks to the Internet Archive). Then, in 2005, the review disappeared and AllMusic staff changed its rating from 4.5 to 2. Therefore the review didn't meet Wikipedia criteria since reviews that include only rating and no text review could not be used as a source. Around 2012, a text review was added, written by Jon O'Brien. The rating didn't change, but the review gives a positive impression. Now, since we don't know if the actual reviewer gives the album the current rating, that review could not be used on Wikipedia and users are working on its removal. I'm writing here because this needs to be clarified and it would be great if someone of the AllMusic staff could solve this issue. Thank you.
Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The review has officially been removed from the Wikipedia article. A reply in which you clarify this situation could make the review suitable for Wikipedia standards.
Photo of Zac Johnson

Zac Johnson, Official Rep

  • 3183 Posts
  • 139 Reply Likes
I'll pass this on to the editors. Hopefully they can shed some light on this subject.
Thanks.
Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Many thanks, I'll wait a reply.
Photo of johnbush360

johnbush360

  • 136 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Thanks for the question. The Jason D. Taylor review was the original piece for that album, and 4.5/5 stars was the original rating. The editorial staff subsequently decided that the review was overly hyperbolic in its praise, read more like it came from a fanzine than a professional critical outlet, and basically didn't defend the high rating, so the piece was removed. The rating was also changed from 4.5/5 stars to 2/5 stars to match the feelings of the editorial staff. Several years later, a descriptive piece was added by Jon O’Brien, although the 2/5 rating may not match his feelings on the album.

Hope this gives you the information you need -- feel free to ask if you have any follow-up questions.

Best,
John Bush
Senior Managing Editor, Pop Music

Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thank you for your reply. Can I ask you what's the point to have a rating of a review which does not match the feelings of the reviewer? I'm asking this because it currently does not meet Wikipedia criteria.
(Edited)
Photo of johnbush360

johnbush360

  • 136 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
I realize that it's not an ideal situation, but it serves a purpose -- the rating reflects our editorial opinion of the album within the artist's discography, while the review describes the sound.
Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The rating should reflect the reviewer opinion if linked to a text review. That's why Metacritic uses your ranting with links to your reviews and that's why the same situation happens on Wikipedia and other notable publications. We're talking about a review site which is labelled as professional but that review with its rating is far from being professional. Is it so difficult to ask reviewer Jon O'Brien to give a rating to the album which reflects his review? I don't find it so complicated since this is what happens on every review published on your site. Thank you.



Photo of Argus F

Argus F

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
What happened to this?
Photo of johnbush360

johnbush360

  • 136 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Hi Argus,

I believe the issue is resolved -- I addressed your root question and explained our methodology behind the rating and review. Sorry you didn't get the answer you were looking for.

Best,
John