Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCE)

The following list consists of recommended sources for expanding articles that primarily or exclusively cover musical topics. This list is merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist. Many of these sources include reviews or links to reviews that can be used to source critical reception sections in album articles, and to add ratings to the {{Music ratings}} template.

This list is not exhaustive. Additional websites and print sources may also be used, provided they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception. Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.

Note: While help in expanding this list is welcome, please be cautious and discuss possible additions on the talk page first. Take a look at the project archives for examples of how it has been done in the past; for example, see the discussions about adding The A.V. Club, MusicOMH, and various magazines.

Reliable sources

Generally reliable sources

These sources are generally considered reliable for use in music-related articles on Wikipedia. Check the far right column for past discussions on the source and any limitations or warnings on a source's particular use.

This list is largely limited to music-centric sources, but well established general sources (such as The New York Times, ABC News Radio, or The Atlantic) are generally considered reliable for music too. For a list of reliable general sources, see Wikipedia: Perennial sources.

Generally reliable sources for album-related information
PublicationPrimary focusRating systemCountryWebsite/ArchivesDiscussions/Limitations
AbsolutePunkRock, alternative, indiePercentage scale: 93%USWebsite2018 Discussion. Only use staff reviews. Defunct as of 2016.
AllHipHopHip hop10-point scale: 7/10USWebsite2008 Discussion
AllMusicAll genres5-star scale:
Note that these are assigned by the editorial team, not the reviewer		USWebsite2015 Discussion, 2017 Discussion, 2021 Discussion – Biography/staff reviews are reliable, but do not use sidebar, as it may be user-generated or otherwise separately sourced from the prose.
Alternative AddictionRock, independent5-star scale: USWebsiteDefunct as of 2020.
Alternative PressRock5-star scale: USWebsite, Archives2012 Discussion
American SongwriterSinger-songwriter5-star scale: USWebsite
American TheatreTheaterNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
AnyDecentMusic?All genresX.Y out of 10UKWebsite2016 Discussion
The A.V. ClubPopular musicLetter grade: B +/–USWebsite2009 Discussion
The AU ReviewRock, alternative, indieNo formal scaleAustraliaWebsite, Archives2019 Discussion
BachBaroque, Bach compositionsNot applicableUSWebsite, Archives,

JSTOR access

BBC MusicAll genresNo formal scaleUKWebsiteDo not use mirrors of Wikipedia
BBC Music MagazineClassical, jazz, world5-star scale: UKWebsite, Archives
Big CheeseRock, alternative, punk10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite2014 Discussion
BillboardPopular musicOlder (1970s–2000s): various categories such as "Spotlight", "Recommended", "Pick", "Four Star", "Critics' Choice" and "Vital Reissue", as defined in the reviews key
Newer: 5-star scale: , scores out of 100 before 2014		USWebsite, Magazine archives, Scanned archives.2015 Discussion
Blabbermouth.netHard rock, heavy metal10-point scale: 7.5/10USWebsite2010 Discussion, 2011 Discussion, 2013 Discussion – Exercise caution with any controversial claims, especially for BLP statements.
BlenderPopular music5-star scale: USWebsite Archives2009 Discussion
Bluegrass UnlimitedBluegrass, old-timeNo formal scaleUSWebsite
BlurtPopular music5-star scale: USWebsite2014 Discussion Created out of Harp staff after dissolution.
The BoomboxHip hop, R&BNo formal scaleUSWebsite
The Boston GlobePopular musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite
Business InsiderPopular music10-point scale: 7/10USWebsite2021 Discussion
Canoe.comAll genres5-star scale: CanadaWebsitePortal for Sun Media newspapers in Canada
CCM MagazineChristian – CCM, gospel, rock, heavy metal, hip hop, urban5-star scale: , older reviews letter grade: B +/–USWebsite, Achives
Chart/Chart AttackRock, alternative, indie, some pop and hip hopNo formal rating systemCanadaWebsiteDefunct as of 2018.
Chronicles of ChaosMetal, rockTen-point scale: 7.5/10Canada/InternationalWebsiteDefunct as of 2015.
ClashPopular music10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite, Archives
Classical MusicClassicalNot applicableUKWebsite, Archives
Classical NetClassicalNo formal scaleUSWebsite
Classical Recordings QuarterlyClassicalNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
Classic RockRock10-point scale: 7/10, although the magazine's website omits the review scoreUKWebsite2016 Discussion
CMJPopular musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite2014 Discussion
ComplexHip hop, R&B, pop, electronic, rock5-star scale:
no formal scale before 2014		USWebsite
Consumable OnlinePopular musicN/AUSWebsite2022 discussion
Consequence (previously titled Consequence of Sound)Popular musicLetter grade: B +/–USWebsite2012 Discussion, 2019 Discussion
Country Standard TimeCountryNo formal scaleUSWebsite2013 Discussion Originally a print magazine from 1995–2009 as well.
CrawdaddyRockNo formal scaleUSWebsite
Czech Music QuarterlyClassical, particularly Czech classicalNo formal rating systemCzech RepublicWebsite, Archives and Magazine archives
Dead Press!Rock10-"thunderbolt" scale, 7/10UKWebsite2018 Discussion Only staff reviews.
DecibelHeavy metal10-star scale: USWebsite, Archives2015 Discussion
DiapasonClassical, hi-fi recordingFranceWebsite
Distorted Sound MagRockUSWebsite2023 Discussion
DIY (previously titled This Is Fake DIY)Popular music, indie5-star scale: UKWebsite Archives
DJ MagEDMUKWebsite2017 Discussion
Dotdash (previously titled About.com)All genres5-star scale: USWebsite2014 Discussion – Only cite authors approved here.
DownBeatJazz, blues, R&B5-star scale: , online reviews have no formal scaleUSWebsite
Drowned in SoundRock, independent10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite2009 Discussion, 2012 Discussion. Only use staff reviews. Note that the site is defunct and has become a newsletter on Substack: https://drownedinsound.substack.com/
DummyElectronic music10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion
Early MusicEarly musicNot applicableUKWebsite, JSTOR access
Early Music TodayEarly musicNot applicableUKWebsite, Archives
Entertainment WeeklyAll genresLetter grade: B +/–USWebsite
Exclaim!All genres10-point scale: 7/10 or no formal scaleCanadaWebsite2009 Discussion
ExploreMusicAll genresNo formal rating systemCanadaWebsite
FactPopular music5-disc scale, 3.5/5UKWebsite
The FaderPopular music, folk, experimentalNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
FilterPopular music100-percent scale: 75%USWebsite, Magazine archives
The FlyPopular music5-star scale: UKWebsite, Archives
General Music TodayAll genres, classical focusNot applicableUSWebsite, Archives
The GleanerJamaicanJamaicaWebsite
GoldmineAll genres5-star scale: ; or letter-grade scale for reviews posted on staff blogsUSWebsite2015 Discussion
GramophoneClassicalNo formal scaleUKWebsite, Archives
HarpAdult album alternativeUKWebsite2014 Discussion
The HinduIndian – all genresNo formal scaleIndiaWebsite
Hip Hop ConnectionHip hop5-point scale: 4/5UK
HipHopDXHip hop5-point scale: 4/5 (Converted from X's)USWebsite2009 Discussion, 2011 Discussion
HMChristian – rock, heavy metal5-star scale: , some older reviews 10-point scale or no formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives2018 Discussion
HotNewHipHopHip hop, R&BPercentage scale: 93%USWebsite2019 Discussion
HuffPost (previously titled The Huffington Post)Popular musicNo formal rating scaleUSWebsite
IdolatorPopular music10-star scale: USWebsite
The IndependentAll genres5-star scale: UKWebsite2021 Discussion
InRockPopular music, primarily rock musicRussiaWebsite, ArchivesIn Russian, with option for an English main page.
The Jamaica ObserverJamaicanJamaicaWebsite
Jazz HotJazzFrenchWebsite, ArchivesIn French.
Jazzed MagazineJazzNot applicableWebsite, Magazine archives
Jazz JournalJazz5-star scale: UKWebsite
Jazz MagazineJazzFranceWebsite, Magazine archivesFrench language.
JazzmanJazzFranceWebsite, ArchivesDefunct since 2009. French language.
JazzTimesJazzNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
Jesus Freak HideoutChristian – popular music5-star scale: USWebsiteAvoid user reviews (distinguished as yellow stars instead of red)
JuiceRock, heavy metal, surf and skate musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite
Kerrang!Rock, heavy metal5-"K" scale, 4/5UKWebsite2009 Discussion
KludgePopular music, independent10-point scale: 7/10USWebsite, Website
KrugozorClassical music, popular musicSoviet UnionWebsite, ArchivesDefunct. In Russian.
Latin Beat MagazineLatinNo formal scaleUSWebsite, ArchivesMulti-language source
Le Guide musicalClassicalNo formal scaleFrance and BelgiumWorldCat listing
WorldCat listing		French language publication that ran from 1855 until World War I
Le MénestrelClassicalNo formal scaleFranceArchivesFrench language publication that ran from 1833 until World War II
Les InrockuptiblesRock, indieFranceWebsite, ArchivesFrench language
LimelightClassical, jazz, pop5-star scale: AustraliaWebsite, Archives
The Line of Best FitPopular music10-star scale: UKWebsite
Living BluesBluesNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
Lost at SeaAll genres10-point scale: 7.5/10USWebsite
Loud and QuietPopular music10-point scale: 7/10 or no formal scaleUKWebsite, Archives
LoudwireRock, heavy metal5-star scale: USWebsite2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion
MagicPopular musicFranceWebsite, ArchivesFrench language. Many back issue are out of stock.
MagnetRock10-star scale: USWebsite, Archives
MelodicRock, independent5-star scale: InternationalWebsite
Metal ForcesHeavy metal10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite Reviews archives
Metal HammerHeavy metal10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite, Archives2009 Discussion. Includes Louder (formerly known as Team Rock)
Metal InjectionHeavy metalWebsite2018 Discussion
Metal StormHeavy metal10-point scale: 7.6/10.0 or

no formal scale

EstoniaWebsite2011 Discussion – Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG
MetalSucksHeavy metal5-point scale: USWebsite2015 Discussion. Generally reliable, but don't use overly satirical work, like this.
MixmagEDM, Synthpop5-"headphones" scaleUKWebsite, Archives
MojoRock, popular music5-star scale (from 2003 onwards): UKWebsite, Archives2009 Discussion
MTVPopular musicNo formal rating systemUSWebsite
Musical OpinionClassical musicNo formal scaleUKWebsite
The Musical QuarterlyAll genres, classical focusNot applicableUSWebsite, JSTOR access
Musical Theatre MagazineTheaterUSWebsite
The Musical TimesClassicalNot applicableUKJSTOR access
MusicMightRockNot applicableNZWebsite and WebsiteOnly use content attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha)
MusicOMHAll genres5-star scale: or no formal scaleUKWebsite2009 Discussion
Music StoryAll genres5-star scale: FranceArchives2018 Discussion – Current website has no past reviews; link to offsite archived reviews with author if available, rather than star rating only
Music TimesPopular musicNo formal rating systemUSWebsite2016 Discussion
Nash Country Weekly (previously titled Country Weekly)CountryLetter grade B +/–
reviews from 2003 to 2012 use a 5-star scale , no formal scale before then.
Some online archives of reviews omit the rating designation.		USWebsite, Archive
NH7Indian – Indie, alternativeLetter gradeIndiaWebsite
NMERock, popular musicUntil September 2015: 10-point scale: 7/10
From October 2015 to September 2016: 5-point scale: 4/5
From October 2016: 5-star scale: 		UKWebsite, Archives
No RipcordPopular music10-point scale: 7.5/10UKWebsite2022 discussion
NoisecreepHard rock, heavy metalNo formal rating systemUSWebsite2022 discussion
Nothing but Hope and PassionPopular musicNo formal scaleGermanyWebsite
NowAll genres5-"N" scale, 4/5CanadaWebsite, Archives
NPR MusicAll genresNo formal scaleUSWebsite
OperaOperaNo formal scaleUKWebsite, Archives
Opera CanadaOperaCanadaWebsite, Archives
Opera NewsOperaNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
Opera NowOperaNo formal scaleUKWebsite, Archives
OrchestraOrchestral music, theater musicNo formal scaleSerbiaWebsite, Archives
OrganPopular music, especially independent, alternative, and underground musicNo formal scaleUKWebsite
Website (no longer updated)
Ox-FanzineRock music, especially punk and heavy metal10-point scale: GermanywebsiteGerman language
PasteRock10-point scale: 7.6/10USWebsite, Archives
Perfect Sound ForeverAlternative, electronic and experimental musicNo formal scale, reviews are only included in overviews of musicians careersUSWebsite2014 Discussion
PianistClassical, piano music5-point written scale (4 stars) or no formal scaleUKWebsite, Website, Archives
PitchforkPopular music, independent10-point scale: 7.6/10.0USWebsite
PlaylouderPopular music, independent5-point scale: UKReviews archive
PopMattersPopular musicOlder: 10-point scale: 7/10
From May 2015: 10-star scale: 		InternationalWebsiteNo formal rating for reviews published before 2005
PunkPunkUSWebsite, Archives
Punk GlobePunk, rockUSWebsite, IndexPer a 2018 discussion, it is acceptable for interviews as well as uncontroversial claims and basic facts, such as that band X released album Y in year Z or played A on date B at venue C. Especially given it's a fanzine (specifically a punk zine), however, it generally shouldn't be used for controversial or sensitive biographic claims.
Punknews.orgPunk, heavy metal, independent5-star scale: USWebsiteUse staff reviews only, recognizable by a tag
QPopular music5-star scale: UKWebsite2009 Discussion
The QuietusPopular musicNo formal scaleUKWebsite
RapReviewsHip hop10 point scale: 6/10USWebsite
Rap-UpUrban, popular musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite
Record CollectorAll genresOlder: no formal scale, then 4-star scale:
Newer: 5-star scale: 		UKWebsite, Archives
Reggae ReportReggae, Caribbean, African, hip hopNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives
RelixJam bands and various rock and roots music, as well as live performancesNo formal scaleUSWebsite2022 discussion
Renowned for SoundAll genres5-star scale: or no formal scaleInternationalWebsite
Resident AdvisorElectronic5 point scale: 3/5GlobalWebsite
RevolverHeavy metal5-point scale: 3/5USWebsite, Archives
Robert ChristgauRock, popular music{{Rating-Christgau}}: C+, or USWebsite2014 Discussion
Rock & FolkRock musicFranceWebsite, ArchivesFrench language
Rock HardHeavy metal10-point scale: 7.5/10GermanyWebsite, Magazine archivesGerman language
Rock SoundRock10-point scale: 7/10UKWebsite, Archives2009 Discussion
Rock Street JournalIndian – rockLetter gradeIndiaWebsite
Rolling StoneRock, popular music5-star scale: (for several decades, converted to prose-only in 2022)[1]USWebsite, Archives
Roots ArchivesJamaican and ReggaeNot applicableWebsiteA discography database
RoughstockCountryNo formal scaleUSWebsite
SB&OBand and orchestral musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archives (subscription required)
SelectPopular music5-point scale: 4/5UK
The SkinnyAll genres5-star scale: UKWebsite, Archives
Slant MagazinePopular music5-star scale: USWebsite
Sonic SeducerDark culture10-point scale or no formal scaleGermanyWebsite, Archives, archive.org Reviews archiveGerman language.
The SourceHip hop5-"microphone" scaleUSWebsite
Spill MagazineIndependent music10-point scaleCanadaWebsite, About Us2020 discussion
SpinRock, hip hop, alternative10-point scale: 7/10USWebsite, Archives2009 Discussion
SpinnerRockNo formal rating systemUSWebsite
SputnikmusicAll genres5-point scale: 3.5/5USWebsite2017 Discussion – Use staff and emeritus reviews only, recognizable by tag
SrutiIndianNo formal scaleIndiaWebsite
Stylus MagazinePopular musicLetter grade: B +/-USWebsite
SymphonyClassical music, orchestral musicNo formal scaleUSWebsite, Archive
Taste of CountryCountry5-star scale ; some old reviews use 10-point scale (7.5/10)USWebsite
Thrash HitsHeavy metal6-point scale: 4.5/5USWebsite2015 Discussion
Tiny Mix TapesPopular music, independent/underground music, avant-garde/experimental5-point scale: or USWebsite2018 discussion
Triple JPopular musicNo formal scaleAustraliaWebsite
Ultimate GuitarRock, heavy metal10-point scale: 7/10InternationalWebsite2015 Discussion, 2018 Discussion. Only cite articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.
UncutPopular musicOlder: 5-star scale:
From April 2012: 10-point scale: 7/10		UKWebsite
Under the RadarIndie10-star scale: USWebsite, Archives2022 discussion
URBElectronic, urbanNo formal scaleUKWebsite
VH1Popular musicNo formal rating systemUSWebsite
VibeR&B, hip hop5-star scale: USWebsite2009 Discussion
Welsh Music HistoryWelsh musicNot applicableUKArchives
The WireAvant-garde, modern classical, jazz, hip hop, electronicNo formal scaleUKWebsite
Wondering SoundAll genres5-star rating: USWebsiteReviews before 2014 are unrated.
XXLHip hopSystem based on clothing sizes; scale of small ("S") to extra-extra large ("XXL")USWebsite
Yearbook for Traditional MusicTraditional, traditional danceNot applicableUKWebsite, JSTOR access

Aggregates

AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic can be used to give an aggregate score of an album's reception. However, avoid citing the review excerpts listed below the aggregate score; instead, seek out the reviews in full and cite them individually. {{Album ratings}} has the ADM and MC parameters respectively that can be used to display the aggregate scores for an album. When describing the score in prose, be sure to note that the score is an aggregate and how many reviews it is based on. For example:

Professional ratings
Aggregate scores
SourceRating
Metacritic46/100[2]
Review scores
SourceRating

The Devil's Rain received mixed reviews from critics. At Metacritic, the album has an average score of 46 out of 100, which indicates "mixed or average reviews" based on 11 reviews.[2]

You may use the {{Metacritic album prose}} template to standardize this language.

Music charts

For information on what charts to use or avoid, see WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS.

Instrument-specific

Note that these publications may not only include information pertinent to the instrument or instruments to which they are dedicated, but also news coverage and reviews of performances and recordings featuring those instruments.

See mu:zines for an online archive of music magazines.

Instrument-specific sources
PublicationInstrumentCountryWebsite/ArchivesDiscussions/Limitations
Attack MagazineSynthesizer, production equipmentUKWebsite2020 discussion
Acoustic GuitarAcoustic guitarUSWebsite, Archives
Bass GuitarBass guitarUKWebsite, Archives
Bass PlayerBass guitarUSWebsite, Archives
Bass QuarterlyBass guitarGermanyWebsite, Archives
The Clarinet JournalClarinetUSWebsite, Archives
Clarinet & SaxophoneClarinet and saxophoneUKWebsite
Clavier CompanionPiano and keyboardUSWebsite, Archives
Choir & OrganVoice, organUKWebsite, Archives
CSO Sounds & StoriesOrchestraUSWebsite, Archives
The DiapasonOrganUSWebsite, Archives
DRUM! MagazineDrum kitUSWebsite, Archives
Electronic MusicianSynthesizer, production equipmentUSWebsite, Archives
Flute TalkFluteUSWebsite, Archives
The Flute ViewFluteUSWebsite, Archives
The Flutist QuarterlyFluteUSWebsite, Archives
GuitaristGuitarUKWebsite, Archives
Guitar PlayerGuitarUSWebsite, Archives
Guitar WorldGuitarUSWebsite, Archives
International PianoPianoUKWebsite, Archives
Journal of the American Viola SocietyViolaUSWebsite, Archives
KeyboardKeyboardUSWebsite, Archives
MusicTechProduction and recording equipmentUKWebsite2020 discussion
Music RadarProduction and recording equipmentUKWebsite2020 discussion
Modern DrummerPercussionUSWebsite, Archives
The OrganPipe organUKWebsite, Archives
PanFluteUKWebsite
Percussive NotesPercussionUSWebsite
RecordingAudio and recording equipmentUSWebsite
Red Bull Music AcademyProduction and recording equipmentUSWebsite2018 discussion
Saxophone LifeSaxophoneUKWebsite
Saxophone TodaySaxophoneUSWebsite, Archives
Sound on SoundProduction and recording equipmentUKWebsite, Archives
The StradStringUKWebsite, Archives
Strings and Teen StringsStringUSWebsite, Archives,

Archives

Tape OpProduction and recording equipmentUSWebsite, Archives
Vintage GuitarGuitarUSWebsite

Other sources

  • Newspapers, periodicals, journals, and other online and print media publications often include coverage of music and its performers, and recordings. They can be excellent sources.
  • A physical album's liner notes are generally a good place to find writing and production credits for a personnel section. Some records are also released with additional writing that may be helpful with an article's recording and/or composing section. The album notes can be properly sourced with the {{Cite album-notes}} template.
  • As long as the information being contributed is not overly promotional, unduly self-serving or biased, the artist or record label's website may be acceptable sources. These sites often provide detailed information about an artist's discography. However, since many band websites are recreated entirely upon the release of a new studio album, URL's or information may be moved or deleted, and articles are left with the phenomenon known as link rot. To avoid this, try to find a different source with the same information, or a web archive of the original source. For assistance with web archiving, see Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine.
  • Statements given in interviews with an artist, producer, or any other music personnel are reliable for statements about the person themselves and the work they are involved in, such as their band, compositions, etc. However, they are not reliable for statements about other living persons. Any statements about another person should be supported by the individual in question or else a reliable source.
  • If the artist in question was subject to any form of recorded audio or video in the possible form of a television documentary or an informational DVD/VHS, this may be an acceptable source of information. To cite information from a source like this, use either {{cite video}} or {{cite episode}}, whichever is most applicable.
  • If an artist or recording act has existed for a significant period of time and/or has made a great impact on their scene or music in general, it's likely that someone has written a book on the topic. An easy way to search through books is with a quick Google Books search. Google Books will provide links of several possible locations to obtain a copy, and will sometimes provide select passages of the book for previewing. To cite a book as a source, use the {{cite books}} template.

Non-English sources

For more, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources

English-language sources are preferred, as this is an English-language encyclopedia and languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers. However, if few sources exist, those in languages other than English may be included, especially if the language is especially relevant to the subject in question. Sources in any language must meet the above guidelines, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:ALBUMS#Reception.

Christian music

For sources pertaining primarily or specifically to Christian music of all genres, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources.

Korean music and K-pop

For sources that deal with South Korean culture, including K-pop and other forms of Korean music, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources.

Latin music

For sources that focus on Latin music and its subgenres, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music/Resources.

Search engine

The Music WikiProject maintains a Music Reliable Source Search Engine. The customizable search engine searches for sources that are listed in the WP:MUSICRS list.

Unreliable sources

There are a number of types of sources to generally avoid using on Wikipedia. Some examples include:

Generally unreliable sources

Generally unreliable sources
WebsiteDiscussionNoteURL[3]
45cat.com2017 DiscussionInfo is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG.[5]
Acclaimed Music2022 DiscussionSelf-published (the about page states "my" repeatedly, referring to the site's methodology) list aggregation site with little transparency and no apparent oversight[6]
Album of the Year2020 DiscussionNo clear editorial discretion between sources, including several amateur critics alongside otherwise reliable/professional ones.[7]
Alternative Nation (GrungeReport)2018 DiscussionReported issues of clickbait and truth-bending, WP:OR type reports. Still usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for interviews, or when covered by other reliable sources (though it is preferred if you use the other reference that covers said content).[8]
Alternative Vision2019 DiscussionIssues with reliability and neutrality of the team, particularly due to a lack of editorial control for the earlier reviews[9]
Amazon.com2008 DiscussionAmazon's reviews are all user-generated, failing WP:USERG. Retailers in general often have placeholder info or release dates prior to release.[10]
Audiopinions.net2011 DiscussionSelf-published Wordpress blog[11]
Bestsellingalbums.org2022 DiscussionUnclear sources and unknown editorial oversight. Also suspect copyvio.[12]
Bnrmetal.com––[13]
chartmasters.org2018 DiscussionSelf-published website that gives no viable basis for claims[14]
Cryptic Rock2018 DiscussionReported issues of errors and questionable content. Still usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for interviews.[15]
Daily Mail2017 DiscussionPer linked discussion, a general, Wikipedia-wide discussion was held, and it was found unreliable to be used in any content areas.[16]
Daily Star (UK)See the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4Per WP:DAILYSTAR, The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.[17]
Discogs2017 DiscussionInfo is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG. Album jackets should be sourced directly using the {{Cite AV media notes}} template.[18]
DJBooth2010 DiscussionNo editorial oversight.[19]
Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives.com)2015 DiscussionMuch of the content is user-generated, editorial review is limited. Fails WP:USERG and WP:RS.[20]
Epinions2006 DiscussionWP:USERG, no editorial oversight. Possibly defunct.[21]
EquipboardWP:USERG, no editorial oversight.[22]
Forbes.com contributorsSee the following WP:RSN discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11WP:FORBESCON, Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites"[23]
Grande-rock.com2012 DiscussionSelf-published website, no writer credentials.[24]
Headline Planet2020 DiscussionSite claims to have an editorial team but majority of content is written by the same person (company founder/site owner) with few exceptions (WP:RSSELF). Editor consensus holds the site to be generally unreliable and WP: QUESTIONABLE. Reliable secondary sources can be found that offer the same information if not better.[25]
HuffPost contributorsSee the following WP:RSN discussions of HuffPost contributors:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Per WP:HUFFPOCON, HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner").[26]
IMDbSee the following WP:RSN discussions of IMDb: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Per WP:IMDB, the content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:ELP).[27]
International Business TimesSee the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Per WP:IBTIMES: There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.[28]
JezebelSee the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3Per WP:JEZEBEL, there is consensus that Jezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially on biographies of living persons. Many editors consider Jezebel to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. Some editors say that Jezebel is biased or opinionated.[29]
Josepvinaixa.com–Blogger, also called "Ultimate Music"[30]
Kworb.net2018 DiscussionPersonal blog with no editorial oversight.[31]
MediumSee the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3Per WP:MEDIUM, Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.[32]
Metalheadzone.com2019 DiscussionSimilar to Alternative Nation – no credentials, history of misleading and inaccurate reports.[33]
Metalmusicarchives.com2011 DiscussionFails WP:USERG. Possibly defunct.[34]
Metal-observer.com2009 DiscussionStaff/writers lack professional credentials.
Metalwani.com2012 DiscussionDespite providing a list of staff, appears to be a blog.
MetroLyrics2016 Discussion, 2016 Discussion (2), 2017 Discussion, 2019 Discussion, 2021 DiscussionSongwriter credits are unreliable; site has been offline since 6/2021[35]
MusicMight2016 DiscussionAny content not attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha) is unreliable. Defunct.[36]
Musixmatch2019 DiscussionAny content that does not indicate "Lyrics verified by Musixmatch" or "Lyrics verified by [NAME] Curator" (must scroll down to "Last activities" on the lyrics page to find this notation).[37]
The Needle Drop2014 Discussion, 2017 Discussion, 2017 Discussion (2), 2021 DiscussionEditors have achieved a consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. Strong consensus was reached that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop constitute self-published sources. Rough consensus among editors was reached that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. Furthermore, there is a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if content from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article.[38]
Perez Hilton–Gossip blogger[39]
Piero Scaruffi2014 DiscussionNon-professional, self-published content. Even his books were self-published, and are thus unreliable.[40]
PopCrush2012 DiscussionEditors did not find evidence of editorial oversight or writer credentials[41]
Prog Archives2011 DiscussionNon-professional review website, fails WP:USERG[42]
PropertyOfZack.com2012 DiscussionRelatively new without much in the way of reputation or credentials as of time of review.[43]
Rate Your Music2009 DiscussionFails WP:USERG[44]
RockOnTheNet2013 DiscussionEditors found it to be unreliable. Content often has no writers listed, and no prose or context, just lists.[45]
Seaoftranquility.org2014 DiscussionLack of writers with any professional credentials.[46]
SecondHandSongs2021 discussionFails WP:USERG[47]
Setlist.FM2018 DiscussionFails WP:USERG[48]
Scott Floman2018 DiscussionReviews on his website & archives and his self-published The Story of Rock and Soul Music: Album Reviews and Lists 1960–2016 fail WP:SELFPUBLISH; only his reviews published in reliable third-party publications are usable. Possibly defunct.[49]
Songfacts.com2008 discussionContent is user-generated, so fails WP:USERG.[50]
SongMeanings2022 discussionContent is user-generated, so fails WP:USERG.[51]
Soundofmetal.se–Self-published website with unknown editorial oversight[52]
The Sun (UK)See the following WP:RSN discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14As per WP:THESUN, The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.[53]
Tunefind2012 Discussion, 2019 DiscussionFails WP:USERG[54]
UnderTheGunReview.net2014 Discussion, 2018 DiscussionEditors deemed it unprofessional – writers without credentials and often gets spammed on Wikipedia.[55]
Vintage Synth Explorer2019 discussionAppears to be a personal blog[56]
WhoSampled2012 DiscussionFails WP:USERG[57]
YouTube2021 DiscussionText, such as recording personnel and dates, that appears on a YouTube video page is from unknown sources and added without fact-checking or editorial oversight[58]

Reviews and ratings which only summarize other reviews and ratings should not be included either, such as Artistdirect's reviews from AllMusic.

About.com

Some of About.com's writers have expertise in music criticism, some do not. Please consult the Table of critics to see if a particular writer is reliable. Do not cite critics that are marked as "No" in the discussion.

See also

Footnotes

Retrieved from "https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources&oldid=1225228252"
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchWikipedia:Featured picturesYasukeHarrison ButkerRobert FicoBridgertonCleopatraDeaths in 2024Joyce VincentXXXTentacionHank AdamsIt Ends with UsYouTubeNew Caledonia2024 Indian general electionHeeramandiDarren DutchyshenSlovakiaKingdom of the Planet of the ApesAttempted assassination of Robert FicoLawrence WongBaby ReindeerXXX: Return of Xander CageThelma HoustonFuriosa: A Mad Max SagaMegalopolis (film)Richard GaddKepler's SupernovaWicked (musical)Sunil ChhetriXXX (2002 film)Ashley MadisonAnya Taylor-JoyPlanet of the ApesNava MauYoung SheldonPortal:Current eventsX-Men '97