LIMSwiki

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal Websites: Computing Low‑importance 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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I have removed a number of rather grandiose claims in these edits: there is no reliable evidence provided to back these statements. In addition, the London Free Press (LFP) is held up as reliable source using Blabbermouth as a reliable source--I have serious doubts about that claim. If you search the paper's website for Blabbermouth, you find a bunch of articles saying "Blabbermouth reports" and such, but all those articles on LFP are in turn pulled from WENN.com, which our article describes as "an entertainment text and photo wire-service provider"--not as something that spell "reliable source". I don't want to cast doubt on the reliability of WENN, but I do want to cast doubt on a chain of evidence that supposedly proves Blabbermouth's reliability: LFP cites WENN, which cites Blabbermouth, therefore Blabbermouth is a reliable source. No. If Blabbermouth is to be hailed because it "has been widely cited as a source on heavy metal and hard rock" or because it "is widely recognized as an authority on heavy metal and hard rock", then those claims should be verified by reliable sources providing in-depth discussion of Blabbermouth, not by mentions in one provider that copied it from another provider--that's primary at best. This is common convention across Wikipedia and should apply here as well. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, I can find no evidence of the LPF having claimed that Blabbermouth is a "reliable industry and fan site". Drmies (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an alleged copy-paste of the original article here. No original URL to work with for archive.org unfortunately. PatriciaXX (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the comment section has been shut down. There are no comments for about 2 weeks now.--2003:EE:3BC4:B6F2:ECD7:A0D9:139B:E594 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I lowered the article rating from C to start based on the content assessment scale. It relies heavily on a single interview with the founder from 2004, and has minimal information from secondary sources. The two newest sources (out of only four) are from 2008. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]