Template:Infobox album/doc: Difference between revisions

m (Changed protection level for "Template:Infobox Album/doc" [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading])
Line 94: Line 94:
The reviews should be listed alphabetically in the '''Reviews''' field. Start each one on a new line, beginning with an asterisk (*). The first bit of info should be the name of the source (most commonly a magazine like ''Rolling Stone''—note that magazines are italicized).
The reviews should be listed alphabetically in the '''Reviews''' field. Start each one on a new line, beginning with an asterisk (*). The first bit of info should be the name of the source (most commonly a magazine like ''Rolling Stone''—note that magazines are italicized).


The second bit should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the [[Template:Rating|star rating template]], for example, entering <code><nowiki>{{Rating|4.5|5}}</nowiki></code>, will render: {{Rating|4.5|5}}. For reviews by [[Robert Christgau]] you should use the [[Template:Review-Christgau|Christgau review template]], for example, entering <code><nowiki>{{Review-Christgau|dud|album=10000}}</nowiki></code>, will render: {{Review-Christgau|dud|album=10000}}. Numerical ratings, letter grades and other non-symbol ratings should be shown using plain text in parentheses, like (3.5/10), (B) or (90%). If no rating is given in the review you should use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank.
The second bit should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the [[Template:Rating|star rating template]], for example, entering <code><nowiki>{{Rating|4.5|5}}</nowiki></code>, will render: {{Rating|4.5|5}}.  


The third bit is preferably a link to the actual review on an official page; it may also be a summary of the review located elsewhere (if the original publisher doesn't include it online). The link should display as the year that the review was published. If you cannot find the year of publication, the word ''link'' will suffice. If there are no online sources, you may include no link at all, but must then cite the information properly. The citation should include the full date of publication and preferably the page number.
The third bit is preferably a link to the actual review on an official page; it may also be a summary of the review located elsewhere (if the original publisher doesn't include it online). The link should display as the year that the review was published. If you cannot find the year of publication, the word ''link'' will suffice. If there are no online sources, you may include no link at all, but must then cite the information properly. The citation should include the full date of publication and preferably the page number.