This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Excellent job with this, HotHat. You've got almost all RSes on the topic I can think of here! The only suggestion I would add would be
UPTV.com - formerly Gospel Music Channel.com. They haven't reviewed as much material lately, but given that is a major television channel in the CCM industry, it might be worth adding. ToaNidhiki0515:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Sources is of a higher quality than just music review sources, so we have to be very careful if we are going to merge. I like having them be two standalone articles, but that is just me.
HotHat (
talk)
06:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Either a source is reliable or it isn't. I do agree that a lot of work was done on the "Sources" page, but a lot of work was done here as well.--
¿3family6contribs02:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I mentioned this on the main project discussion, but I'll restate here with further comments:
Gospel music needs inclusion as a category. For that matter,
R&B and
urban, classical, jazz, country, and electronic should also be considered. For publications like
Cross Rhythms and Christianity Today which deal with every style, a simple "all" should suffice.--
¿3family6contribs16:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)reply
We have a tremendous ammount of resources to use now, so I except more higher quality articles pertaining to this genre of music, such as albums, songs, biographies/band/artist pages. Furthermore, I think critical reception sections should be a cinch.
HotHat (
talk)
03:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I should have clarified in my initial post that while it is DJ Wade-O's site, he has a full staff team, and much, if not most, of the writing is not by him.--
¿3family6contribs00:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I think a good idea here would be, if there were a consensus for it, to expand to include which singles charts are acceptable. CCM is rather unique in that it has had three major singles charts over a relatively short timespan, meaning it might be confusing to some editors. I propose including the following, with disclaimers:
CCM Magazine charts - Chart histories are not available online; they are only available in individual magazines and the out-of-print Hot Hits books by Jeffery Lee Brothers. CCM charts were monthly from July 1978 to September 1986, bi-weekly from September 1986 to June 1992, and weekly from June 1992 to April 15, 2002, when the charts and data were turned over to Radio and Records. CCM Magazine is reliable for pre-Radio & Records charts, and was the only magazine to publish CCM charts from 1978 to 2002.
Radio & Records charts - Chart histories are not directly accessible online, but many chart weeks can be found in web archives such as the
Wayback Machine. R&R charts were weekly, and were published from April 15, 2005 until June 2009, when the magazine was shuttered. R&R charts are reliable and a good accompaniment for the Billboard charts, especially in regards to the Christian CHR, INSPO, and Christian Rock formats, which Billboard did not cover.
Billboard charts - Chart histories are available online. Billboard began covering CCM singles with the creation of the
Christian Songs and
Hot Christian AC charts on June 21, 2003. After the shuttering of R&R in 2009, Billboard took over publication of the Christian CHR, INSPO, and Christian rock charts.
It might be worth it to note which members own the Hot Hits books, so users can find the information quicker; I own the Adult Contemporary charts book, but not the CHR book. ToaNidhiki0500:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
If there is editorial oversight for what each contributor writes, then it certainly is passable. If not, then the authors qualify as self-published sources. They do have some impeccable credentials.--
¿3family6contribs02:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I propose the name to be changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Music charting and review sources. What do you all think about that?
HotHat (
talk)
02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I still think it should be merged with the Sources article. Many of the entries are duplicates, making these pages prime targets for merging. Sources are either reliable or they aren't.--
¿3family6contribs02:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I will work on that, but I think we could merge this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources (current), for this list, and put the other at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources (archived). This is so that we can keep the other links to sources because that kind of information should not ever be lost. I like the disambiguation better because it solves the titling issues.
HotHat (
talk)
06:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, I propose making Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources a link page for both the current/new/updated and for the archived/old/outdated. What do you think? I just don't want to lose the work of the previous undertakings.
HotHat (
talk)
07:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
An archive is precisely what I had in mind. Archive all of the reference documentation, and then put in a link to the effect of "to see previous research demonstrating reliability" (hopefully better worded than that).--
¿3family6contribs12:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
CMNexus is a great resource - you can search an artist and find print and online reviews for their albums, as well as won awards and news articles. Where should this go on this page? ToaNidhiki0513:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi, there! I am in the process of revising all the early album entries for
the Choir, adding relevant information with reliable sources and doing basic formatting and cleanup. I've gotten as far as Diamonds and Rain and am currently working on completely revamping Chase the Kangaroo. However, in adding reviews to the band's later works, I've discovered that writer Brian Q. Newcomb, who founded Harvest Rock Syndicate and has written for other Christian music publications for decades, is a contributor to the music site
The Fire Note. I recommend that be considered a reliable source for reviews, as he has long-standing credentials in Christian music journalism.
TARDIS (
talk)
18:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)reply