This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
Well, hopefully this addresses all the problems that existed with the original article. Any suggestions from seasoned Wikipedia pros will be much appreciated. StemLongStem (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
this website is a sham. I say we delete this page. ~ user:DRdugan 6:11 PM March 9 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
not a sham if a highly credible third party source (The Guardian) refers to it, In addition to 2 or 3 "lesser" sources (AOL, Metacritic), one of which is basically a music review resource (metacritic), which further cements its status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Great site and usually smart staff opinions (if not a little snotty), but great music can be found there. It's too bad the site is SO RIDICULOUSLY SLOW ALL THE DAMN TIME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)