Wikipedia - which band has the nerdiest/crap-trivia-filled page

it was put back and considered a "positive review" because whoever wrote the blog post said it sounded like "a banger". half the ppl making edits on these songs' pages have usernames derived from the artists' song lyrics. pseudo-objective unpaid e-team marketing pablum

Tbf both sound fishy even by wikipedia guidelines. My friend has his account deleted over a decade ago because he never changed his (dumb) username from having 'youtubechannel' in the name. I think most of the discussion about what goes in critical reception sections happens at wikiproject albums (rather than songs) but it should, and I think generally does, apply across the board. besides being stupid, a passing comment that a song is good shouldn't really be used anyway, especially when there is a plethora of actual good sources to use.

that's the other pop wikipdedia thing, as illustrated above several times - the constant use of tiny quotations.

I don’t normally f with editing Wikipedia, but last year I made a project out of fixing a page for a well-known song which stated a “fan theory” as fact (one of those factoids that’s repeated all over the Internet, but which there’s not actually a true source for). The issue had been raised on the Talk page over the years, but the standard for fixing it was some sort of “prove the negative” situation.

After a few deletions of my edits and more Talk back-and-forth, I finally got it done; thanks to a sympathetic & skillful editor who saw what I was doing, looked at my source for debunking the rumor, and incorporated the correction (better than I had originally done).