Talk:CSN (album)

Removing link to Robert Christgau

I removed the link to Robert Christgau's review, because it really doesn't contain any useful information about CSN, the album. He just writes "Wait a second--wasn't this a quartet? D+". I think that a review linked by an encyclopedia should have more descriptive information, instead of just panning an album because it's made by only three out of the four people you want it to be made by. Gary (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Agreed. Someone put it back but am removing it. If someone wants a critical reception section so bad it needs to include a legit review. It is biased by default, with the first sentence describing the reviewer's distaste for the musicians. A music review needs to be about the music, no the absense of Neil Young. UselessToRemain (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Disagreed. Wikipedia is not a repository of links for information (funny no mention of the fabricated "not rated" by Rolling Stone was made), and the ratings template is meant to supplement a section of prose by illustrating through the presentation of scores. Also, your opinions on the critic are moot; he's prominent and well-respected enough in the field of music journalism and reviewing to qualify WP:SUBJECTIVE. Get over it. Dan56 (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting?

Most of this article is written as though it's been copied/pasted from another source. It's not exactly encyclopaedic. Some of it sounds like it's copied from some sort of documentary? I don't know. Just a thought. Edaemus (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral

Sorry to spoil everyone's illusions, but Graham Nash's song "Cathedral" is certainly not a "critique on Christianity" - it is in fact literally a song about an LSD trip that Nash once took while visiting Winchester cathedral! Graham Nash has stated this fact himself on several occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanPomeray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CSN (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/crosbystillsandnash/albums/album/161351/review/5940558/csn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Refrences

Several references have been added to copyvio material by Cassidd -- scans of Billboard magazines not published by Billboard themselves. Are acceptable references available for this material, or should it be removed completely? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]