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 {{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

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: Note that these are assigned by the editorial team, not the reviewer	US	Website	2015 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 Addiction	Rock, independent	5-star scale:	US	Website	Defunct as of 2020.
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
AnyDecentMusic?	All genres	X.Y out of 10	UK	Website	2016 Discussion
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
Business Insider	Popular music	10-point scale: 7/10	US	Website	2021 Discussion
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	Defunct as of 2018.
Chronicles of Chaos	Metal, rock	Ten-point scale: 7.5/10	Canada/International	Website	Defunct as of 2015.
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
Consumable Online	Popular music	N/A	US	Website	2022 discussion
Consequence (previously titled 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
Distorted Sound Mag	Rock		US	Website	2023 Discussion
DIY (previously titled This Is Fake DIY)	Popular music, indie	5-star scale:	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. Note that the site is defunct and has become a newsletter on Substack: https://drownedinsound.substack.com/
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	2021 Discussion
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
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	2022 discussion
Noisecreep	Hard rock, heavy metal	No formal rating system	US	Website	2022 discussion
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	US	Website	2014 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
Relix	Jam bands and various rock and roots music, as well as live performances	No formal scale	US	Website	2022 discussion
Renowned for Sound	All genres	5-star scale: or no formal scale	International	Website
Resident Advisor	Electronic	5 point scale: 3/5	Global	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: (for several decades, converted to prose-only in 2022)	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 the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) 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	2022 discussion
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

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
Source	Rating
Metacritic	46/100
Review scores
Source	Rating

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.

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

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
MusicTech	Production and recording equipment	UK	Website	2020 discussion
Music Radar	Production and recording equipment	UK	Website	2020 discussion
Modern Drummer	Percussion	US	Website, Archives
The Organ	Pipe organ	UK	Website, Archives
Pan	Flute	UK	Website
Percussive Notes	Percussion	US	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
Vintage Guitar	Guitar	US	Website

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:

• Per Wikipedia's guideline on user-generated sources, websites with user-generated content are generally unacceptable as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Fandom, 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, AllMusic, Jesus Freak Hideout, and Sputnikmusic, 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 important enough for inclusion, a publication will likely report about it.
• 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 summary should be avoided. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that genres can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the summary (e.g. AllMusic's summary classifies Rhythm Killers as "reggae", while the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight"; likewise, AllMusic's summary says that Staind includes the post-grunge genre while the reviewer says that the band "no longer sound like post-grungers...").

Generally unreliable sources

Generally unreliable sources

Website	Discussion	Note	URL
45cat.com	2017 Discussion	Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG.	[5]
Acclaimed Music	2022 Discussion	Self-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 Year	2020 Discussion	No clear editorial discretion between sources, including several amateur critics alongside otherwise reliable/professional ones.	[7]
Alternative Nation (GrungeReport)	2018 Discussion	Reported 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 Vision	2019 Discussion	Issues with reliability and neutrality of the team, particularly due to a lack of editorial control for the earlier reviews	[9]
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.	[10]
Audiopinions.net	2011 Discussion	Self-published Wordpress blog	[11]
Bestsellingalbums.org	2022 Discussion	Unclear sources and unknown editorial oversight. Also suspect copyvio.	[12]
Bnrmetal.com	–	–	[13]
chartmasters.org	2018 Discussion	Self-published website that gives no viable basis for claims	[14]
Cryptic Rock	2018 Discussion	Reported issues of errors and questionable content. Still usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for interviews.	[15]
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.	[16]
Daily Star (UK)	See the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4	Per WP:DAILYSTAR, The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.	[17]
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.	[18]
DJBooth	2010 Discussion	No editorial oversight.	[19]
Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives.com)	2015 Discussion	Much of the content is user-generated, editorial review is limited. Fails WP:USERG and WP:RS.	[20]
Epinions	2006 Discussion	WP:USERG, no editorial oversight. Possibly defunct.	[21]
Equipboard		WP:USERG, no editorial oversight.	[22]
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: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.com	2012 Discussion	Self-published website, no writer credentials.	[24]
Headline Planet	2020 Discussion	Site 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 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: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]
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: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 Times	See the following WP:RSN discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Per 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]
Jezebel	See the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3	Per 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.net	2018 Discussion	Personal blog with no editorial oversight.	[31]
Medium	See the following WP:RSN discussions:1 2 3	Per 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.com	2019 Discussion	Similar to Alternative Nation – no credentials, history of misleading and inaccurate reports.	[33]
Metalmusicarchives.com	2011 Discussion	Fails WP:USERG. Possibly defunct.	[34]
Metal-observer.com	2009 Discussion	Staff/writers lack professional credentials.
Metalwani.com	2012 Discussion	Despite providing a list of staff, appears to be a blog.
MetroLyrics	2016 Discussion, 2016 Discussion (2), 2017 Discussion, 2019 Discussion, 2021 Discussion	Songwriter credits are unreliable; site has been offline since 6/2021	[35]
MusicMight	2016 Discussion	Any content not attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha) is unreliable. Defunct.	[36]
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).	[37]
The Needle Drop	2014 Discussion, 2017 Discussion, 2017 Discussion (2), 2021 Discussion	Editors 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 Scaruffi	2014 Discussion	Non-professional, self-published content. Even his books were self-published, and are thus unreliable.	[40]
PopCrush	2012 Discussion	Editors did not find evidence of editorial oversight or writer credentials	[41]
Prog Archives	2011 Discussion	Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG	[42]
PropertyOfZack.com	2012 Discussion	Relatively new without much in the way of reputation or credentials as of time of review.	[43]
Rate Your Music	2009 Discussion	Fails WP:USERG	[44]
RockOnTheNet	2013 Discussion	Editors found it to be unreliable. Content often has no writers listed, and no prose or context, just lists.	[45]
Seaoftranquility.org	2014 Discussion	Lack of writers with any professional credentials.	[46]
SecondHandSongs	2021 discussion	Fails WP:USERG	[47]
Setlist.FM	2018 Discussion	Fails WP:USERG	[48]
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. Possibly defunct.	[49]
Songfacts.com	2008 discussion	Content is user-generated, so fails WP:USERG.	[50]
SongMeanings	2022 discussion	Content 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 14	As 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]
Tunefind	2012 Discussion, 2019 Discussion	Fails WP:USERG	[54]
UnderTheGunReview.net	2014 Discussion, 2018 Discussion	Editors deemed it unprofessional – writers without credentials and often gets spammed on Wikipedia.	[55]
Vintage Synth Explorer	2019 discussion	Appears to be a personal blog	[56]
WhoSampled	2012 Discussion	Fails WP:USERG	[57]
YouTube	2021 Discussion	Text, 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

• Wikipedia:Advanced source searching
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Offline sources – an essay in support of print media as sources on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Shared Resources#Music – list of reliable offline music sources offered by WikiProject Resource Exchange
• Wikipedia:Record_charts