Talk:Raw (music magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

All a bit POV dont'cha think?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looks to me like those involved in the mag have used this article to 'put the record straight' on what happened... needs a bit of cleaning up methinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.31.97.129 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) tag added... i assume that 'Dave Dickson' who put these edits on here is the same one who used to write for this mag (and Kerrang! before that) either way it is obviously not neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.13.221 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The last part especially needs to be rewritten by someone who isn't Malcolm Dome's mum. Tsuguya (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article badly wants rewriting

It is about as neutral as a bucket of sodium hydroxide - the tag was removed on what I consider to be a technicality, not because it is a neutral article. It is clearly slanted and written from the perspective of somebody who was actually involved in the goings-on behind the scenes at the magazine. Wikipedia is not a place for ex-staffers with an axe to grind to set the record straight as they see it. This piece should either be rewritten or removed.

Add topic