Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources

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 {{Album 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 quite 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 sourcesEdit

GeneralEdit

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
Publication Primary focus Rating system Country Website/Archives Discussions/Limitations
AbsolutePunk Rock, alternative, indie Percentage scale: 93% US Website 2018 Discussion. Only use staff reviews. Defunct as of 2016.
AllHipHop Hip hop 10-point scale: 7/10 US Website 2008 Discussion
AllMusic All genres 5-star scale:       US Website 2015 Discussion
2017 Discussion - Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose.
Alternative Addiction Rock, independent 5-star scale:       US Website
Alternative Press Rock 5-star scale:       US Website, Archives 2012 Discussion
American Songwriter Singer-songwriter 5-star scale:       US Website
American Theatre Theater No formal scale US Website, Archives
The A.V. Club Popular music Letter grade: B +/– US Website 2009 Discussion
The AU Review Rock, alternative, indie No formal scale Australia Website, Archives 2019 Discussion
Bach Baroque, Bach compositions Not applicable US Website, Archives,

JSTOR access

BBC Music All genres No formal scale UK Website Do not use mirrors of Wikipedia
BBC Music Magazine Classical, jazz, world 5-star scale:       UK Website, Archives
Big Cheese Rock, alternative, punk 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website 2014 Discussion
Billboard Popular music Older (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
US Website, Magazine archives, Scanned archives. 2015 Discussion
Blabbermouth.net Hard rock, heavy metal 10-point scale: 7.5/10 US Website 2010 Discussion, 2011 Discussion, 2013 Discussion - Exercise caution with any controversial claims, especially for BLP statements.
Blender Popular music 5-star scale:       US Website Archives 2009 Discussion
Bluegrass Unlimited Bluegrass, old-time No formal scale US Website
Blurt Popular music 5-star scale:       US Website 2014 Discussion Created out of Harp staff after dissolution.
The Boombox Hip hop, R&B No formal scale US Website
The Boston Globe Popular music No formal scale US Website
Canoe.com All genres 5-star scale:       Canada Website Portal for Sun Media newspapers in Canada
CCM Magazine Christian – CCM, gospel, rock, heavy metal,
hip hop, urban
5-star scale:      , older reviews letter grade: B +/– US Website, Achives
Chart/Chart Attack Rock, alternative, indie, some pop and hip hop No formal rating system Canada Website
Chronicles of Chaos Metal, rock Ten-point scale: 7.5/10 Canada/International Website
Clash Popular music 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website, Archives
Classical Music Classical Not applicable UK Website, Archives
Classical Net Classical No formal scale US Website
Classical Recordings Quarterly Classical No formal scale US Website, Archives
Classic Rock Rock 10-point scale: 7/10, although the magazine's website omits the review score UK Website 2016 Discussion
CMJ Popular music No formal scale US Website 2014 Discussion
Complex Hip hop, R&B, pop, electronic, rock 5-star scale:      
no formal scale before 2014
US Website
Consequence of Sound Popular music Letter grade: B +/– US Website 2012 Discussion, 2019 Discussion
Country Standard Time Country No formal scale US Website 2013 Discussion Originally a print magazine from 1995-2009 as well.
Crawdaddy Rock No formal scale US Website
Czech Music Quarterly Classical, particularly Czech classical No formal rating system Czech Republic Website, Archives and Magazine archives
Dead Press! Rock 10-"thunderbolt" scale, 7/10 UK Website 2018 Discussion Only staff reviews.
Decibel Heavy metal 10-star scale:            US Website, Archives 2015 Discussion
Diapason Classical, hi-fi recording France Website
DIY (previously titled This Is Fake DIY) Popular music, indie 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website Archives
DJ Mag EDM UK Website 2017 Discussion
Dotdash (previously titled About.com) All genres 5-star scale:       US Website 2014 Discussion - Only cite authors approved here.
DownBeat Jazz, blues, R&B 5-star scale:      , online reviews have no formal scale US Website
Drowned in Sound Rock, independent 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website 2009 Discussion, 2012 Discussion. Only use staff reviews
Dummy Electronic music 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website 2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion
Early Music Early music Not applicable UK Website, JSTOR access
Early Music Today Early music Not applicable UK Website, Archives
Entertainment Weekly All genres Letter grade: B +/– US Website
Exclaim! All genres 10-point scale: 7/10 or no formal scale Canada Website 2009 Discussion
ExploreMusic All genres No formal rating system Canada Website
Fact Popular music 5-disc scale, 3.5/5 UK Website
The Fader Popular music, folk, experimental No formal scale US Website, Archives
Filter Popular music 100-percent scale: 75% US Website, Magazine archives
The Fly Popular music 5-star scale:       UK Website, Archives
General Music Today All genres, classical focus Not applicable US Website, Archives
The Gleaner Jamaican Jamaica Website
Goldmine All genres 5-star scale:      ; or letter-grade scale for reviews posted on staff blogs US Website 2015 Discussion
Gramophone Classical No formal scale UK Website, Archives
Harp Adult album alternative UK Website 2014 Discussion
The Hindu Indian – all genres No formal scale India Website
Hip Hop Connection Hip hop 5-point scale: 4/5 UK
HipHopDX Hip hop 5-point scale: 4/5 (Converted from X's) US Website 2009 Discussion, 2011 Discussion
HM Christian – rock, heavy metal 5-star scale:      , some older reviews 10-point scale or no formal scale US Website, Archives 2018 Discussion
HotNewHipHop Hip hop, R&B Percentage scale: 93% US Website 2019 Discussion
HuffPost (previously titled The Huffington Post) Popular music No formal rating scale US Website
Idolator Popular music 10-star scale:            US Website
The Independent All genres 5-star scale:       UK Website
InRock Popular music, primarily rock music Russia Website, Archives In Russian, with option for an English main page.
The Jamaica Observer Jamaican Jamaica Website
Jazz Hot Jazz French Website, Archives In French.
Jazzed Magazine Jazz Not applicable Website, Magazine archives
Jazz Journal Jazz 5-star scale:       UK Website
Jazz Magazine Jazz France Website, Magazine archives French language.
Jazzman Jazz France Website, Archives Defunct since 2009. French language.
JazzTimes Jazz No formal scale US Website, Archives
Jesus Freak Hideout Christian - popular music 5-star scale:       US Website Avoid user reviews (distinguished as yellow stars instead of red)
Juice Rock, heavy metal, surf and skate music No formal scale US Website
Kerrang! Rock, heavy metal 5-"K" scale, 4/5 UK Website 2009 Discussion
Kludge Popular music, independent 10-point scale: 7/10 US Website, Website
Krugozor Classical music, popular music Soviet Union Website, Archives Defunct. In Russian.
Latin Beat Magazine Latin No formal scale US Website, Archives Multi-language source
Le Guide musical Classical No formal scale France and Belgium WorldCat listing
WorldCat listing
French language publication that ran from 1855 until World War I
Le Ménestrel Classical No formal scale France Archives French language publication that ran from 1833 until World War II
Les Inrockuptibles Rock, indie France Website, Archives French language
Limelight Classical, jazz, pop 5-star scale:       Australia Website, Archives
The Line of Best Fit Popular music 10-star scale:            UK Website
Living Blues Blues No formal scale US Website, Archives
Lost At Sea All genres 10-point scale: 7.5/10 US Website
Loud and Quiet Popular music 10-point scale: 7/10 or no formal scale UK Website, Archives
Loudwire Rock, heavy metal 5-star scale:       US Website 2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion
Magic Popular music France Website, Archives French language. Many back issue are out of stock.
Magnet Rock 10-star scale:            US Website, Archives
Melodic Rock, independent 5-star scale:       International Website
Metal Forces Heavy metal 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website Reviews archives
Metal Hammer Heavy metal 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website, Archives 2009 Discussion. Includes Louder (formerly known as Team Rock)
Metal Injection Heavy metal Website 2018 Discussion WP:USERG
Metal Storm Heavy metal 10-point scale: 7.6/10.0 or

no formal scale

Estonia Website 2011 Discussion - Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG
MetalSucks Heavy metal 5-point scale:       US Website 2015 Discussion. Generally reliable, but don't use overly satirical work, like this.
Mixmag EDM, Synthpop 5-"headphones" scale UK Website, Archives
Mojo Rock, popular music 5-star scale (from 2003 onwards):       UK Website, Archives 2009 Discussion
MTV Popular music No formal rating system US Website
Musical Opinion Classical music No formal scale UK Website
The Musical Quarterly All genres, classical focus Not applicable US Website, JSTOR access
Musical Theatre Magazine Theater US Website
The Musical Times Classical Not applicable UK JSTOR access
MusicMight Rock Not applicable NZ Website and Website Only use content attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha)
MusicOMH All genres 5-star scale:       or no formal scale UK Website 2009 Discussion
Music Story All genres 5-star scale:       France Archives 2018 Discussion – Current website has no past reviews; link to offsite archived reviews with author if available, rather than star rating only
Music Times Popular music No formal rating system US Website 2016 Discussion
Nash Country Weekly (previously titled Country Weekly) Country Letter 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.
US Website, Archive
NH7 Indian - Indie, alternative Letter grade India Website
NME Rock, popular music Until September 2015: 10-point scale: 7/10
From October 2015 to September 2016: 5-point scale: 4/5
From October 2016: 5-star scale:      
UK Website, Archives
No Ripcord Popular music 10-point scale: 7.5/10 UK Website
Noisecreep Hard rock, heavy metal No formal rating system US Website
Nothing but Hope and Passion Popular music No formal scale Germany Website
Now All genres 5-"N" scale, 4/5 Canada Website, Archives
NPR Music All genres No formal scale US Website
Opera Opera No formal scale UK Website, Archives
Opera Canada Opera Canada Website, Archives
Opera News Opera No formal scale US Website, Archives
Opera Now Opera No formal scale UK Website, Archives
Orchestra Orchestral music, theater music No formal scale Serbia Website, Archives
Organ Popular music, especially independent, alternative, and underground music No formal scale UK Website
Website (no longer updated)
Ox-Fanzine Rock music, especially punk and heavy metal 10-point scale:            Germany website German language
Paste Rock 10-point scale: 7.6/10 US Website, Archives
Perfect Sound Forever Alternative, electronic and experimental music No formal scale, reviews are only included in overviews of musicians careers United States Website Discussion
Pianist Classical, piano music 5-point written scale (4 stars) or no formal scale UK Website, Website, Archives
Pitchfork Popular music, independent 10-point scale: 7.6/10.0 US Website
Playlouder Popular music, independent 5-point scale:       UK Reviews archive
PopMatters Popular music Older: 10-point scale: 7/10
From May 2015: 10-star scale:           
International Website No formal rating for reviews published before 2005
Punk Punk US Website, Archives
Punk Globe Punk, rock US Website, Index Per 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.org Punk, heavy metal, independent 5-star scale:       US Website Use staff reviews only, recognizable by a tag
Q Popular music 5-star scale:       UK Website 2009 Discussion
The Quietus Popular music No formal scale UK Website
RapReviews Hip hop 10 point scale: 6/10 US Website
Rap-Up Urban, popular music No formal scale US Website
Record Collector All genres Older: no formal scale, then 4-star scale:     
Newer: 5-star scale:      
UK Website, Archives
Reggae Report Reggae, Caribbean, African, hip hop No formal scale US Website, Archives
Renowned for Sound All genres 5-star scale:       or no formal scale International Website
Resident Advisor Electronic 5 point scale: 3/5 Global Website
Respect Hip hop No formal rating scale US Website
Revolver Heavy metal 5-point scale: 3/5 US Website, Archives
Robert Christgau Rock, popular music {{Rating-Christgau}}: C+,    or   US Website 2014 Discussion
Rock & Folk Rock music France Website, Archives French language
Rock Hard Heavy metal 10-point scale: 7.5/10 Germany Website, Magazine archives German language
Rock Sound Rock 10-point scale: 7/10 UK Website, Archives 2009 Discussion
Rock Street Journal Indian - rock Letter grade India Website
Rolling Stone Rock, popular music 5-star scale:       US Website, Archives
Roots Archives Jamaican and Reggae Not applicable Website A discography database
Roughstock Country No formal scale US Website
SB&O Band and orchestral music No formal scale US Website, Archives (subscription required)
Select Popular music 5-point scale: 4/5 UK
The Skinny All genres 5-star scale:       UK Website, Archives
Slant Magazine Popular music 5-star scale:       US Website
Sonic Seducer Dark culture 10-point scale or no formal scale Germany Website, Archives, archive.org Reviews archive German language.
The Source Hip hop 5-"microphone" scale US Website
Spill Magazine Independent music 10-point scale Canada Website, About Us 2020 discussion
Spin Rock, hip hop, alternative 10-point scale: 7/10 US Website, Archives 2009 Discussion
Spinner Rock No formal rating system US Website
Sputnikmusic All genres 5-point scale: 3.5/5 US Website 2017 Discussion - Use staff and emeritus reviews only, recognizable by tag
Sruti Indian No formal scale India Website
Stylus Magazine Popular music Letter grade: B +/- US Website
Symphony Classical music, orchestral music No formal scale US Website, Archive
Taste of Country Country 5-star scale      ; some old reviews use 10-point scale (7.5/10) US Website
Thrash Hits Heavy metal 6-point scale: 4.5/5 US Website 2015 Discussion
Tiny Mix Tapes Popular music, independent/underground music, avant-garde/experimental 5-point scale:       or       US Website 2018 discussion
Triple J Popular music No formal scale Australia Website
Ultimate Guitar Rock, heavy metal 10-point scale: 7/10 International Website 2015 Discussion, 2018 Discussion. Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.
Uncut Popular music Older: 5-star scale:      
From April 2012: 10-point scale: 7/10
UK Website
Under the Radar Indie 10-star scale:            US Website, Archives
URB Electronic, urban No formal scale UK Website
VH1 Popular music No formal rating system US Website
Vibe R&B, hip hop 5-star scale:       US Website 2009 Discussion
Welsh Music History Welsh music Not applicable UK Archives
The Wire Avant-garde, modern classical, jazz, hip hop, electronic No formal scale UK Website
Wondering Sound All genres 5-star rating:       US Website Reviews before 2014 are unrated.
XXL Hip hop System based on clothing sizes; scale of small ("S") to extra-extra large ("XXL") US Website
Yearbook for Traditional Music Traditional, traditional dance Not applicable UK Website, JSTOR access

AggregatesEdit

Album of the Year, 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 AOTY, 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[1]
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.[1]

  1. ^ a b "The Devil's Rain – Misfits". Metacritic. Retrieved 2012-07-03.

You may use the {{MC}} template to standardize this language.

Music chartsEdit

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

Instrument-specificEdit

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.

Instrument-specific sources
Publication Instrument Country Website/Archives Discussions/Limitations
Attack Magazine Synthesizer, production equipment UK Website 2020 discussion
Acoustic Guitar Acoustic guitar US Website, Archives
Bass Guitar Bass guitar UK Website, Archives
Bass Player Bass guitar US Website, Archives
Bass Quarterly Bass guitar Germany Website, Archives
The Clarinet Journal Clarinet US Website, Archives
Clarinet & Saxophone Clarinet and saxophone UK Website
Clavier Companion Piano and keyboard US Website, Archives
Choir & Organ Voice, organ UK Website, Archives
CSO Sounds & Stories Orchestra US Website, Archives
The Diapason Organ US Website, Archives
DRUM! Magazine Drum kit US Website, Archives
Electronic Musician Synthesizer, production equipment US Website, Archives
Flute Talk Flute US Website, Archives
The Flute View Flute US Website, Archives
The Flutist Quarterly Flute US Website, Archives
Guitarist Guitar UK Website, Archives
Guitar Player Guitar US Website, Archives
Guitar World Guitar US Website, Archives
International Piano Piano UK Website, Archives
Journal of the American Viola Society Viola US Website, Archives
Keyboard Keyboard US Website, Archives
Modern Drummer Drum kit US Website, Archives
The Organ Pipe organ UK Website, Archives
Pan Flute UK Website
Recording Audio and recording equipment US Website
Red Bull Music Academy Production and recording equipment US Website 2018 Discussion
Saxophone Life Saxophone UK Website
Saxophone Today Saxophone US Website, Archives
Sound on Sound Production and recording equipment UK Website, Archives
The Strad String UK Website, Archives
Strings and Teen Strings String US Website, Archives,

Archives

Tape Op Production and recording equipment US Website, Archives

Other sourcesEdit

  • 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 sourcesEdit

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 musicEdit

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

Korean music and k-popEdit

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

Latin musicEdit

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

Unreliable sourcesEdit

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

  • Per Wikipedia's guideline on user-generated sources, websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Wikia, and product-related sites such as 45cat.com, Discogs, Rate Your Music or Last.fm. It is also important to be cautious of websites that publish user-submitted album reviews. For sites such as AbsolutePunk, Sputnikmusic, and Jesus Freak Hideout, be sure to select only the staff-written reviews.
  • Self-published sources are generally unacceptable as references on Wikipedia. An artist's social networking site, such as Facebook or Twitter, in addition to personal blogs and forum posts, should largely be avoided. If the information being added from one of these websites is truly notable enough for inclusion, a publication will likely report about it.[1][2]
  • Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided. It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question. Wikipedia's role should not be used to advance the sale of an album nor to promote one retailer over another. Generally speaking, all of the information found on online retailers can be found in other sources. Songwriters, track listings and lengths, producers, record label, etc., may be sourced directly from the actual album covers and liner notes. Template:Cite AV media notes "is used to create citations for print liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media." If AllMusic is used for dates, then check that the dates given are not contradictory – such as recording and release dates being the same – and consider finding another source for dates for pre-internet-era releases.
  • AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that they can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the sidebar (e.g. AllMusic's sidebar classifies Rhythm Killers as "reggae", while the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight"; likewise, AllMusic's sidebar says that Staind includes the post-grunge genre while the reviewer says that the band "no longer sound like post-grungers...").

GeneralEdit

Generally unreliable sources
Website Discussion Note
45cat.com 2017 Discussion Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG.
Alternative Nation (GrungeReport) 2018 Discussion Reported issues of click bait 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).
Alternative Vision 2019 Discussion Issues with reliability and neutrality of the team, particularly due to a lack of editorial control for the earlier reviews
Amazon.com 2008 Discussion Amazon's reviews are all user-generated, failing WP:USERG. Retailers in general often have placeholder info or release dates prior to release.
Audiopinions.net 2011 Discussion Self-published Wordpress blog
Bnrmetal.com - -
chartmasters.org 2018 Discussion Self-published website that gives no viable basis for claims
Cryptic Rock 2018 Discussion Reported issues of errors and questionable content. Still usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for interviews.
Daily Mail 2017 Discussion Per linked discussion, a general, Wikipedia-wide discussion was held, and it was found unreliable to be used in any content areas.
Daily Star (UK) See the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4 Per WP:RSP, The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.
Discogs 2017 Discussion Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG. Album jackets should be sourced directly using the {{Cite AV media notes}} template.
DJBooth 2010 Discussion No editorial oversight.
Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives.com) 2015 Discussion Much of the content is user-generated, editorial review is limited. Fails WP:USERG and WP:RS.
Epinions 2006 Discussion WP:USERG, no editorial oversight.
Firestream.net - -
Forbes.com contributors See the following WP:RSN discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 WP:RSP, 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"
Grande-rock.com 2012 Discussion Self-published website, no writer credentials.
HuffPost contributors See the following WP:RSN discussions of HuffPost contributors:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Per WP:RSP, 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").
IMDb See 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 26 Per WP:RSP, 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).
International Business Times See the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Per WP:RSP: 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.
Jezebel See the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3 Per WP:RSP, 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.
Josepvinaixa.com - Blogger, also called "Ultimate Music"
Kworb.net 2018 Discussion Personal blog with no editorial oversight.
Themetalcritic.com - -
Medium See the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3 Per WP:RSP, 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.
Metalheadzone.com 2019 Discussion Similar to Alternative Nation - no credentials, history of misleading and inaccurate reports.
Metalmusicarchives.com 2011 Discussion Fails WP:USERG.
Metal-observer.com 2009 Discussion Staff/writers lack professional credentials.
Metalwani.com - -
MetroLyrics 2016 Discussion, 2016 Discussion (2), 2017 Discussion, 2019 Discussion Songwriter credits are unreliable.
MusicMight 2016 Discussion Any content not attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha) is unreliable.
Musixmatch 2019 Discussion Any 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).
The Needle Drop 2014 Discussion, 2017 Discussion, 2017 Discussion (2) Reviews by Anthony Fantano are self-published. However, Fantano is usable if his review was published by a third party.
Perez Hilton - Gossip blogger
Piero Scaruffi 2014 Discussion Non-professional, self-published content. Even his books were self-published, and are thus unreliable.
PopCrush 2012 Discussion Editors did not find evidence of editorial oversight or writer credentials
Prog Archives 2011 Discussion Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG
PropertyOfZack.com 2012 Discussion Relatively new without much in the way of reputation or credentials as of time of review.
Rate Your Music 2009 Discussion Fails WP:USERG
RockOnTheNet 2013 Discussion Editors found it to be unreliable. Content often has no writers listed, and no prose or context, just lists.
Seaoftranquility.org 2014 Discussion Lack of writers with any professional credentials.
Setlist.FM 2018 Discussion Fails WP:USERG
Scott Floman 2018 Discussion Reviews 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.
Songfacts.com 2008 Discussion Content is user-generated.
Soundofmetal.se - -
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 14 As per WP:RSP, 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.
Thetunemusic.com - -
UnderTheGunReview.net 2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion Editors deemed it unprofessional—writers without credentials and often gets spammed on Wikipedia.
WhoSampled 2012 Discussion Fails WP:USERG

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

About.comEdit

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 alsoEdit

FootnotesEdit

  1. ^ On December 11, 2010 Rise Against tweeted that they were almost finished recording their new album. A day later, Alternative Press (source) and PunkNews.org (source) published this as news citing Rise Against's tweet as their source.
  2. ^ Following the death of their bassist, Paul Gray, heavy metal group Slipknot were unsure if they would continue as a band. A series of tweets from their lead singer Cory Taylor were posted about his feelings on the matter, and published shortly thereafter by Blabbermouth.net, Noisecreep, Gun Shy Assassin and Chart.[1][2][3][4]