Talk:James Masterton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is totally biased. He is one of the least informed reviewers that I have ever come across. He has no clue as to the merits of dance music and favours commerical pop over any other genre stating, for example, that Atomic Kitten's The Tide Is High (one of the most lamentable covers of all time) was a "worthy number one"! Triangle e 00:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have had much response to this discussion point, and out of curiosity I did a quick search on this individual to see what kind of views other people have. A quick google search throws up comments relating to him such as "very insightful", "I think he's spot on here", "expert chart commentary" suggesting that whilst he might not be always agreed with, he is held in high regard by those that follow his work. In addition, your rationale for putting a NPOV tag on the article seems to be based on a comment he made about one record several years ago that you happen to persoanlly disagree with, hardly the basis for casting doubt on the balance of an entire article. In my view I don't think the argument of bias is sustainable. The piece is a well worded statement of fact about an online writer and critic. Nothing more. Unless you can come up with a more persuasive argument as to why the piece is NPOV or suggest an alternative wording, I am inclined to remove the tag. --81.135.225.149 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had much response to this discussion point because he is totally non-notable and its shocking that he has a wikipedia entry in the first place! I have absolutely no idea where you looked to come to the conclusion that he is a chart expert. He's useless and is infamous for making mistakes. And besides, it doesn't matter what you or I think about his ability to critique chart records, comments saying that he is "popular for the depth and scope of his weekly analysis and for his wit" etc. are by definition POV. If you want examples of the numbers of mistakes he has made go to www.chcmedia.com (or indeed any other chart based discussion forum, like haven, chart freaks, buzzjack or moopy) and search for "Masterson". http://www.chcmedia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7195 <---- here's a good example of about 4 mistakes that he made in one article. Triangle e 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)