User:ANode

Whenever one adds a piece of information to Wikipedia that's not particularly obvious, a reference would be needed to be attached to the end of the text so that its verificability can be ensured. To do that, you have two ways. Both involves adding a referencing template to the text and filling in the necessary information. The easier, but less flexible template would be as shown below:

<ref>author, [article_link "article_name"], ''publisher'', publication_date. Retrieved retrieved_date.</ref>

This template works out perfectly fine, but can only be used for so many situations, plus it doesn't involve a field to fill in archiving links. In reality, website links don't last forever. Perhaps in the future, the database maintaing that link breaks down and is not repaired, or maybe its web host decides to shut down. You'll be left with an Error 404 issue, which causes the link to be inaccessible and then you suddenly don't have a source to verify the piece of text. To solve this issue, known as link rot, do archive your work on the Internet Archive, and use this second citation template:

<ref>{{cite web|title= |last= |first= |url= |date= |website= |accessdate= |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}</ref>

The template fields should be pretty self-explanatory. Title for the source title, first and last for the author's name, date for source's release date, website being the source's site name, accessdate for the current date you access the page, and archiveurl and archivedate for the links and date of archive for the web pages saved on the Internet Archive.
Reference dates are a strange thing though. It is essential that follow the style of the overall page, to establish consistency. Three styles are commonly used, MMDDYY (January 1, 2018), DDMMYY, (1 January 2018), or simply plain numbers (2018-01-01). MMDDYY are normally used for pages discussing American subjects while other pages use DDMMYY.
This seems like a lot of work, filling each piece of info one by one. To simplify your work, do install ProveIt through your settings preferences. This program installs a graphical interface at the bottom left of your screen, which definitely makes it easier to insert the relevent information. Just paste an empty citation template into the text and put the info right in.

After referencing electronic music articles and discographies for over a year, I've gathered a list of sources which I trust is reliable and should be used in citations. Reference priorities are listed from top to bottom, the top being the first choice whereas the bottom being the last resort.
*Billboardat[1]
*DJ Magat[2] for that rare occasion when they press-release a track
*Dancing Astronautat[3]
*We Got This Covered at [4]
*Complexat[5]
*Your EDM at [6]
*EDM Tunes at [7]
*We Rave You at [8], but not for reviews
*iTunes Storeat[9] for discography tracks without articles
*Beatportat[10]
I would typically avoid blog sites, especially if they will be used in the critical reception section, as they are self-published works without professional oversight. Such notable examples are EDM Sauce, Relentless Beats, Vents Magazine, Broadway World, Stoney Roads, and websites of those sort. Rather than comprising solid critique in their articles, most of their words come from their unaccessed opinions which prove particularly useless when they review albums.