Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources

Edit links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums

Shortcuts

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 atWikipedia:Reliable sources andWP: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 asource that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.

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

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 addingThe A.V. Club,MusicOMH, andvarious magazines.

Also be wary ofpress releases, even in reliable sources. These are examples ofself-published sources. They are generally reliable for statements of fact about the artists or recordings themselves, but do not establish notability and should not be used forunduly self-serving purposes (this includes self-descriptors of music genre). PerWP:NEWSORG, this applies to all press releases, even those re-published in reliable sources. Check a news article for promotional wording. If you are unsure, you can run an internet search of a phrase from the article to see if it is published verbatim elsewhere and thus indicating that it is a press release sent out to multiple media outlets.

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 theAmerican Viola Society	Viola	US	Website,Archives
Keyboard	Keyboard	US	Website,Archives
Mixdown	Production and recording equipment	US	Website	2024 discussion
Modern Drummer	Percussion	US	Website,Archives
Music Radar	Production and recording equipment	UK	Website	2020 discussion
MusicTech	Production and recording equipment	UK	Website	2020 discussion
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 andTeen Strings	String	US	Website,Archives, Archives
Tape Op	Production and recording equipment	US	Website,Archives
Vintage Guitar	Guitar	US	Website

Website	Discussion	Note	URL^[4]
45cat	2017 Discussion	Info is user-submitted/uploaded and failsWP: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 ofclickbait and truth-bending,WP:OR type reports. Still usable as aWP: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	2008 Discussion	Amazon's reviews are all user-generated, failingWP:USERG. Retailers in general often have placeholder info or release dates prior to release.	[10]
Audiopinions	2011 Discussion	Self-publishedWordpress blog	[11]
Audiophile Audition	2025 Discussion	Mostly unclear editorial oversight. However, some writers aresubject-matter experts whose articles can be cited (check the author's credentials to see if they have work published in reliable sources). Audiophile Audition should never be used for third-party claims aboutliving persons.	[12]
Bestsellingalbums.org	2022 Discussion	Unclear sources and unknown editorial oversight. Also suspect copyvio.	[13]
Bossip	–	Gossip website that does not engage in serious journalism.	[14]
Bnrmetal.com	–	–	[15]
chartmasters.org	2018 Discussion	Self-published website that gives no viable basis for claims	[16]
Cryptic Rock	2018 Discussion	Reported issues of errors and questionable content. Still usable as aWP:PRIMARY source for interviews.	[17]
Cult Following	2025 Discussion	Self-published blog with no apparent relevant expertise in the field and is therefore unreliable perWP:SPS.	[18]
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.	[19]
Daily Star (UK)	See the followingWP:RSN discussions:1 2 3 4	PerWP:DAILYSTAR, TheDaily Star is atabloid that is generally considered less reliable than theDaily Mail.	[20]
Discogs	2017 Discussion	Info is user-submitted/uploaded and failsWP:USERG. Album jackets should be sourced directly using the{{Cite AV media notes}} template.	[21]
DJBooth	2010 Discussion	No editorial oversight.	[22]
Encyclopaedia Metallum (The Metal Archives)	2007 Discussion,2015 Discussion	Much of the content is user-generated, editorial review is limited. FailsWP:USERG andWP:RS.	[23]
Epinions	2006 Discussion	WP:USERG, no editorial oversight. Possibly defunct.	[24]
Equipboard	–	WP:USERG, no editorial oversight.	[25]
Far Out	2024 discussion,2025 discussion	Churnalism website, concerns about being aWP:CIRCULAR source.	[26]
Forbes contributors	See the followingWP:RSN discussions ofForbes 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 asself-published sources, unless the article was written by asubject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims aboutliving persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition ofForbes are excluded, and are consideredgenerally reliable. Check thebyline 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 ofForbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by theirURL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, asForbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites"	[27]
Glitter Magazine	2025 Discussion	Glitter appears to be an online magazine, but its About Us and Our Team pages lead to parked GoDaddy domains, making it an unreliable source.	[28]
Grande-rock	2012 Discussion	Self-published website, no writer credentials.	[29]
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 andWP:QUESTIONABLE. Reliable secondary sources can be found that offer the same information if not better.	[30]
The Honey Pop	2020 discussion,2024 discussion	English-language fan-edited site that focuses on news related to pop culture and opinions, lacking rigorous editorial standards.	[31]
HuffPost contributors	See the followingWP:RSN discussions ofHuffPost contributors:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17	PerWP: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 treatingHuffPost contributor articles asself-published sources, unless the article was written by asubject-matter expert.Huffpost contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims aboutliving persons.In 2018,HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check thebyline to determine whether an article is written by astaff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner").	[32]
IMDb	See the followingWP: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	PerWP:IMDB, the content on IMDb isuser-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors.WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not requirecitations 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 (seeWP:ELP).	[33]
International Business Times	See the followingWP:RSN discussions:1 2 3 4 5 6 7	PerWP:IBTIMES: There is consensus that theInternational 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'ssyndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	[34]
Jezebel	See the followingWP:RSN discussions:1 2 3	PerWP:JEZEBEL, there is consensus thatJezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially onbiographies of living persons. Many editors considerJezebel to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. Some editors say thatJezebel isbiased or opinionated.	[35]
Josepvinaixa	–	Blogger, also called "Ultimate Music"	[36]
Kworb	2018 Discussion	Personal blog with no editorial oversight.	[37]
Medium	See the followingWP:RSN discussions:1 2 3	PerWP:MEDIUM, Medium is a blog hosting service. As aself-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 for third-party claims aboutliving persons.	[38]
Metalheadzone	2019 Discussion	Similar to Alternative Nation – no credentials, history of misleading and inaccurate reports.	[39]
Metalmusicarchives	2011 Discussion	FailsWP:USERG. Possibly defunct.	[40]
Metal-observer	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	[41]
Music Feeds	2021 Discussion,2025 Discussion	Unclear staff and no evidence of editorial oversight. Also previously solicited contributors without clear indication, which violatesWP:USERG.	[42]
Music-News	2025 Discussion	Publishes paid promotional content from artists and labels without clearly distinguishing it from editorial reporting; resulting in frequentWP:ABOUTSELF concerns and a lack of reliable editorial oversight.	[43]
Musician Guide	2010 discussion	No evidence of editorial oversight; may have been constructed as a promotional site. Most content is compiled from other sources such asBillboard which should be used in its stead. See alsoTalk:Crystal Gayle/GA1, where a quote from Musician Guide could not be independently verified.	[44]
MusicMight	2016 Discussion	Any content not attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha) is unreliable. Defunct.	[45]
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).	[46]
The Needle Drop	2014 Discussion,2017 Discussion,2017 Discussion (2),2021 Discussion,2024 discussion	Editors have achieved a consensus thatadditional considerations apply when considering whether the use ofThe Needle Drop as a source is appropriate.Strong consensus was reached thatAnthony Fantano's reviews that are published viaThe Needle Drop constituteself-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 asattributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews shouldnever be used as third-party sources about living people. Furthermore, there is arough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitutedue weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if content fromThe Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. News articles hosted on the website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy.	[47]
No Clean Singing	2024 Discussion	While the blog is notable and has a reputation in other reliable media, the consensus was that there is a lack of proper editorial oversight to distinguish the site from a group blog.	[48]
Perez Hilton	–	Gossip blogger	[49]
Out Now Magazine	2025 Discussion	The website has no apparent "about" page, and its authors are mentioned by first name only, making it unlikely to establish subject-matter expertise. It has not been shown to be the same publication as the defunctON Magazine (a.k.a.OutNow Newsmagazine).	[50]
Piero Scaruffi	2014 Discussion	Non-professional, self-published content. Even his books were self-published, and are thus unreliable.	[51]
PM Studio	2025 Discussion	PM Studio lacks a staff page, and all articles appear to share the same byline, suggesting that it functions more as a blog than a formal publication.	[52]
PopCrave	2025 Discussion	The information on the site authors is scant and difficult to verify. The interviews are acceptable asstatements from the subjects about themselves, so long as the statements are not unduly self-serving.	[53]
PopCrush	2012 Discussion	Editors did not find evidence of editorial oversight or writer credentials	[54]
PopFiltr	2025 Discussion	The absence of identifiable editorial staff or writer credentials, as well as the availability of purchasable articles and reviews without clear disclosure	[55]
Prog Archives	2011 Discussion	Non-professional review website, failsWP:USERG	[56]
PropertyOfZack.com	2012 Discussion	Relatively new without much in the way of reputation or credentials as of time of review.	[57]
Rate Your Music	2009 Discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[58]
RockOnTheNet	2013 Discussion	Editors found it to be unreliable. Content often has no writers listed, and no prose or context, just lists.	[59]
Rockpasta	2024 Discussion	No list of staff or evidence of editorial oversight, compared to Alternative Nation through its use of clickbait articles.	[60]
Saving Country Music	2021 discussion	Self-published one-person blog with no editorial oversight and sometimes polemicizing content	[61]
Seaoftranquility	2014 Discussion	Lack of writers with any professional credentials.	[62]
SecondHandSongs	2021 discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[63]
Setlist.FM	2018 Discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[64]
Scott Floman	2018 Discussion	Reviews on his website & archives and his self-publishedThe Story of Rock and Soul Music: Album Reviews and Lists 1960–2016 failWP:SELFPUBLISH; only his reviews published in reliable third-party publications are usable. Possibly defunct.	[65]
Songfacts	2008 discussion	Content is user-generated, so failsWP:USERG.	[66]
SongMeanings	2022 discussion	Content is user-generated, so failsWP:USERG.	[67]
Songmeaningsandfacts	2025 discussion	Content farm that makes heavy use of AI-generated content, with writers who have no discernible subject matter expertise and no substantial editorial oversight.	[68]
Soundofmetal.se	–	Self-published website with unknown editorial oversight	[69]
Soundsjustlike.com	2025 discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[70]
Substream Magazine	2025 discussion	It lacks clear editorial oversight, accepts unqualified contributors, shows poor copyediting and formatting, and provides inconsistent review practices.	[71]
That Grape Juice	2019 discussion,2024 discussion,2025 discussion	Entertainment news blog with unclear editorial rigor and generally shallow coverage; despite having an editorial team and conducting interviews, its inconsistent maintenance and limited depth raise concerns about its reliability as a secondary source.	[72]
The Sun (UK)	See the followingWP:RSN discussions ofThe Sun (UK):1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14	As perWP:THESUN,The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus thatThe Sun is generally unreliable.References fromThe Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining thenotability of any subject. The RfC does not overrideWP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use ofThe Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors considerThe Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.	[73]
TotalNtertainment	2025 Discussion	TotalNtertainment features some bylines and seeks content writers, but it lacks information about its editors and may include sponsored content without clear labeling, raising concerns about transparency and reliability.	[74]
Tunefind	2012 Discussion,2019 Discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[75]
Under the Gun Review	2014 Discussion,2018 Discussion	Editors deemed it unprofessional – writers without credentials and often gets spammed on Wikipedia.	[76]
Vintage Synth Explorer	2019 discussion	Appears to be a personal blog	[77]
We Are the Pit	2024 Discussion	History ofclickbait and sensationalism, negatively compared to Alternative Nation, Cryptic Rock, and Metalheadzone.	[78]
WhoSampled	2012 Discussion	FailsWP:USERG	[79]
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	[80]

v t e WikiProject Albums
Departments	Assessment Participants Popular pages Requested articles Sources Stub templates and categories Style guide To do
Templates	Barnstar Infobox Project banner Ratings Charts Track listing Userbox Liner notes citation
Other pages	New articles Notability Uploading cover art
Related projects	Concert tours Composers Discographies Music Music samples Musicians/bands Record charts Record labels Record Production Songs Christian music
Essays	Genre Warriors TenPoundHammer's Law
Categories	Wikiproject Albums Albums articles Albums participants Albums templates

List of 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.
Airplay Control	All genres	No formal scale	Italy	Website	Singles criteria
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 the summary, 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
Attitude	All genres	5-star scale:	UK	Website	2025 Discussion
AudioCulture	New Zealand music	No formal scale	NZ	Website	2025 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
Bandcamp Daily	All genres	No formal scale	US	Website	2025 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
Beats Per Minute	Rock, hip-hop, and electronic music	Percentage scale: 75%	US	Website	2023 discussion
Big Cheese	Rock, alternative, punk	10-point scale: 7/10	UK	Website	2014 Discussion
The Believer	Music, literature, art	N/A	US	Website	2025 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 forBLP statements.
Blender	Popular music	5-star scale:	US	WebsiteArchives	2009 Discussion
Bluegrass Unlimited	Bluegrass, old-time	No formal scale	US	Website
Blurt	Popular music	5-star scale:	US	Website	2014 Discussion Created out ofHarp staff after dissolution.
The Boombox	Hip hop, R&B	No formal scale	US	Website
The Boot	Country	No formal scale	US	Website	2013 discussion
The Boston Globe	Popular music	No formal scale	US	Website
BrooklynVegan	Popular music	Prose	US	Website	2025 Discussion
Business Insider	Popular music	10-point scale: 7/10	US	Website	2021 Discussion
Canoe.com	All genres	5-star scale:	Canada	Website	Portal forSun Media newspapers inCanada
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.
Chart Watch UK	Popular music	N/A	UK	Website	2025 discussion. Founder:James Masterton
Chronicles of Chaos	Metal, rock	Ten-point scale: 7.5/10	Canada/International	Website	2013 rationale,2024 rationale. Defunct as of 2015. Co-founder and owner: Gino Filicetti Co-founder and owner: Adrian Bromley
Clash	Popular music	10-point scale: 7/10	UK	Website,Archives
Classic Pop	Popular music, primarily 1980s pop	5-star scale:	UK	Website	2025 discussion
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

Professional ratings
Aggregate scores
Source	Rating
Metacritic	46/100^[2]
Review scores
Source	Rating

Movatterモバイル変換

Reliable sources

Generally reliable sources

Aggregates

Music charts

Instrument-specific

Other sources

Non-English sources

Christian music

Korean music and K-pop

Latin music

Unreliable sources

Generally unreliable sources

About.com

Lambgoat.com

See also

Footnotes