{{Shortcut|WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[Rolling Stone]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] Usually reliable for typical purposes
}}
There is consensus that ''Rolling Stone'' has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). ''Rolling Stone'''s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. The publication's [[capsule reviews]] deserve [[WP:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also {{pslink|Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present}}, {{pslink|Rolling Stone (Culture Council)}}.
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Rolling Stone]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 39#Rolling Stone review]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian]]
* [[WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 16#Glixel]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rolling Stone, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Rolling Stone"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (culture) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONE}} {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
|{{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Rolling Stone'' has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). ''Rolling Stone'''s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. The publication's [[capsule reviews]] deserve [[WP:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also {{pslink|Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present}}, {{pslink|Rolling Stone (Culture Council)}}.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rollingstone.com}}
|}