Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Links to reviews

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Period (Kesha album)#Requested move 4 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to know if this source is reliable. Here's the link of one of the reviews from Daily Bruin. [https://dailybruin.com/2013/05/31/album-review-shadows-by-lenka] Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Camilasdandelions, WP:RSSM cites this thread for a discussion that kind of mirrors what you asked, there was also a similar thread here as well. There hasn't been an RfC on using student publications but it's probably usable with other sources being preferred. If there's a long review section already and if some of the sources duplicates what is being discussed in the linked article, it's probably better not to include it. There's also editors in that thread that believe that it's better not to put student reviews and professional reviews in the same section as it would be giving them undue weight or that they're not sources for professional criticism and should just not be used. The Daily Bruin seems to have editorial oversight and a reasonable history without much controversies. Justiyaya 02:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Can I ask how to find whether this article is a student-published? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Camilasdandelions, sorry for the late response. Daily Bruin! There's also usually an [https://dailybruin.com/about about page] associated with any news site. (please ping on reply) Justiyaya 13:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can Forbes be regarded as one of the reliable sources in music era? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:FORBESCON. They produce a lot of unusable content. Sergecross73 msg me 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. But while in that article Sputnikmusic is regarded as unreliable, in here as reliable. What should I follow? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Don't worry, "Sputnik" isn't connected "Sputnik Music". Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve this article, and I found some sources about it but I wonder if they are reliable. Below links are what I found, and not linked websites are frequently-discovered when I try to improve music articles.

1. [https://glittermagazine.co/2021/01/27/charlotte-lawrence-announces-new-self-titled-ep-charlotte/ Glitter]

2. [https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a34290413/charlotte-lawrence-singer-interview/ Cosmopolitan]

3. [https://atwoodmagazine.com/charlotte-ep-charlotte-lawrence-interview-music-2021/ Atwood]

4. [https://www.flaunt.com/post/charlotte-lawrence-the-critical-mass-issue Flaunt]

5. [https://notion.online/a-day-in-the-life-with-charlotte-lawrence/ Notion]

6. [https://www.houseofsolo.co.uk/body-bag-the-next-single-from-the-rising-pop-force-charlotte-lawrence/ House of Solo]

7. TotalNtertainment

8. pm studio Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sure Cosmo generally meets the requirement of being an RS, since it's been a print magazine for so long. That said, mesic music isn't really their specialty, so they probably wouldn't be a great authority for anything controversial or contentious. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi again! Thanks for response. But I don't understand the word "mesic". Did you mean "music"? Also, then I'll not to cite Cosmo on music genres then. :) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, sorry, I meant music. Disappointing autocorrect didn't catch and fix that. Sorry for the confusion. But yeah, I think you're generally fine to use it. What I mean is, if you come across 3 reliable music sources that say "this is a pop punk release" and Cosmo comes and says "this is definitely not pop punk", I'd put much less weight/importance on their stance. (Just a hypothetical example, I have no idea what genre this artist is.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh I see! Thank you again, and it's totally fine about your typo XD. I hope other websites that I suggested can be RS, because most of them are frequently discovered when I search for music sources. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can you link to the last two? Thanks.

:Glitter seems to be an online magazine with some kind of team, but the About Us and Our Team pages go to parked GoDaddy domains. So it can't be accessed and thus I'd say unreliable, for now.

:Atwood Magazine has a big writing team. I'm assuming that some are the editors and site runners, but it doesn't say under the bios and it's a lot to sift through. Since you're proposing the source, maybe you could look through? So that one is a maybe.

:Flaunt has been running since 1998 and it has a staff team, I'd say that's a longstanding online magazine source. Note that it's more geared toward fashion and culture, so that's the area where I'd find it most useful for notability and significant coverage.

:Notion is self-advertised as a promotional and marketing resource. I'd say that this gives them serious conflict of interest problems. The "Opinion" section might still be reliable for independent coverage, but I'd say to approach this source with caution and to check for conflicts of interest.

:House of Solo has a staff team, but I don't know who the editors are or have any indications of how the oversight works as they don't provide any of that information. I'd avoid it.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::@3family6: Hi! Thank you for the reply, your reply really helped me.

::Here's the link of pm studio and TotalNtertainment.

::[https://www.pmstudio.com/music/20250407-25396]

::[https://www.totalntertainment.com/music/aurora-re-releases-through-the-eyes-of-a-child/] Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you. With pm studio, there's no page outlining the staff for the site, and all the articles I've seen have the same byline. I think we're looking at a blog.

:::TotalNtertainment does have some by-lines to other writers, and says that they want content writers, but there's no description of who the editor(s) is/are and such. And they do also accept sponsored content - I don't know if they label it as such or not.

:::With both of those, I would not consider them reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I thought (and hoped) both are reliable. It's sad to hear that, anyway then I'll try to find other sources or delete it. Thank you for telling me! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Glitter is owned by [https://www.linkedin.com/company/glitter-magazine-globe-new-media-inc-/ Soeurs Media Group]. I can't find published editorial standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:@3family6 @Sergecross73 @Voorts: Thank you for y'all responses. Could y'all check [https://outnowmagazine.com/isabel-la-rosa-home/ Outnow Magazine] too? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a RS to me, and covers music. quote, "The magazine is a thirteen-time finalist for the National Magazine Award", it's published by McSweeney's (founded by Dave Eggers), writers include notable journalists such as Erik Morse, etc. Any objections if I add this to the list of sources? Popcornfud (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:None here. Seems like a pretty strong case for reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agree, seems a good quality reference, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the responses. I'll add it. Popcornfud (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Mariah Carey (album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

New talk section is opened. Please share your opinions on this talk page, whether to determine the single or not. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the results of these discussions in 2021 and 2024, is it safe to say Spectrum Culture can be listed on albums reliable sources (since it isn't and looks like it should be by now)? Chchcheckit (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Judging by the 2024 discussion, it looks like there were multiple editors in favor of its use, and the only one opposed is an editor who is currently indefinitely blocked, so I'd say you're probably in the clear. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::wait idk what im supposed to do w this info Chchcheckit (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I thought you were asking to if you could add it to the WP:RSMUSIC list, and I was essentially saying "Yes, you can". Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Mashinalno has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Common title makes it impractical to search online. Run of the mill, small label record.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Feels like it could probably just be a redirect, but its [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Mashinalno daily average of 2 page views per day], likely inflated from 1 prior to this nomination, makes me think that it doesn't really matter either way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, if you like rock music I would appreciate any and all help with reviewing my FAC. It's been open for three weeks, but my FACs often struggle to gain interest and I am once again at risk of archival. I would be open to helping a music-related FAC or GAN in return. mftp dan ^oops 23:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking community input on the reliability of [https://metalontap.com Metal on Tap] for use in album review citations, specifically for heavy metal articles. This stems from a recent edit discussion where concerns were raised about the site’s editorial transparency. Below is my case for consideration, per WP:IRS and WT:ALBUM protocols:  

Publication History & Scope

- Metal on Tap has published album reviews since 2024.

- Focuses exclusively on metal subgenres, with detailed analyses of composition, production, and lyrical themes (e.g., their review of Whitechapel’s [https://metalontap.com/whitechapel-hymns-in-dissonance-a-deathcore-masterpiece-album-review/ Hymns in Dissonance]].

Editorial Standards Evidence

While no editorial staff is publicly listed, their reviews exhibit:

- Structured critiques: Consistent scoring systems (e.g., 10-point scale) and sectioned analysis (vocals, instrumentation, etc.).  

- Interviews with artists: Demonstrating industry access. e.g. [https://metalontap.com/interview-burton-c-bell-talks-career-ai-future-his-australian-tour-in-2025/ This interview] with Burton C Bell (formerly of Fear Factory)

- Fact-checkable claims: Reviews reference verifiable details (e.g., album release dates, producer credits).  

Comparable Precedent

- Similar niche metal outlets like New Transcendence and MetalSucks are routinely cited on Wikipedia despite not always listing editorial teams.  

- Metal on Tap’s reviews are cited in non-Wikipedia contexts (e.g. The Destroy All Lines press release surrounding the Sleep Token album Even in Arcadia).  

Addressing Concerns

- Lack of named staff: This is common in niche music journalism. Per WP:RS#Context_matters, specialized sources may still be reliable if they demonstrate consistent editorial oversight.

- "Surprisingly professional" quality: As noted by the reverting editor, the site’s depth of analysis aligns with established outlets like *Blabbermouth.net*.

I propose a partial reliability status for metal genre album reviews only, given their focused expertise.

- Sample reviews for assessment:

[https://metalontap.com/sleep-token-even-in-arcadia-album-review-a-ritual-in-rhythm-and-ruin/ Sleep Token - Even in Arcadia]  

[https://metalontap.com/album-review-ghosts-skeleta-a-daring-new-chapter-in-the-bands-musical-evolution/ Ghost - Skeleta]

Would appreciate feedback on whether this meets the threshold for WP:ALBUM standards. Thank you! Casseross (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why are you using LLMs for discussions? Rambley (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I will admit to using an LLM to dress up my points, I’m still new to a lot of this and didn’t know what level of formality to go with. Formal isn’t a writing style I’m confident in so I used an aid to do so. It doesn’t make any of the points less valid though Casseross (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable - no editorial staff, editorial policy, writers with professional credentials, or any sort of history in the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As for "writers with professional credentials, or any sort of history in the industry"
• :The main writer is one of Australias largest heavy metal Youtubers, with traditional media shifting away from print and more towards non traditional forms in my mind this would count as professional, but I would agree that with no staff it does make that harder to understand, there is also precedent for sources being cited without published editorial teams.
• :As for history in the industry, worldwide there may not be a lot of history but has one of Australias fastest rising and leading sources via youtube and now his website since mid 2024 Casseross (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::See WP:RSPYT - being a YouTuber isn't helping the argument. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::So YouTubers can't be writers and writers can't be YouTubers?
• :::We're talking about album reviews here, your link from my understanding is referring to citing YouTube as a source, which is not what is happening here. The content on the site is written album reviews, not referencing a YouTubers opinion on what is happening in current or historical events. Casseross (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::We're talking about a website that their only credential appears to be your claim that they're a popular Youtuber. I'm saying that's not a good credential if we don't find YouTubers to be reliable sources either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:If there's no editorial staff listed, and no author bylines, how on earth can you claim that it actually has editorial oversight or professional staff?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Their [https://metalontap.com/about-us/ About Us] page has gone live listing the staff. There are some reviews that do in fact have bylines e.g [https://metalontap.com/hidden-intent-terrorforming-the-aussie-metal-landscape-album-review/ Hidden Intent - Terraform] but not on all reviews Casseross (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So, they've been around since last year, but just posted their "About Us" listing today, coincidentally, at the same time this discussion started? And it looks like majority of your edits are related to this website. Do you have a connection to the website? Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I second Sergecross73's suspicions. It's fine and well that the About Us is up now. I think the site being up since only 2024, and the About Us only going up today, means it's too soon to ascertain a reputation for the site being reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed with this. Unreliable. ResonantDis_tortion 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)