Talk:Sandy Roberton

Edits

This article is subject to repeated edits by editors seeking to remove referenced information without any proper explanation. It has been pointed out to them that the way to remove inaccuracies is to raise concerns here, on this talk page, so that they can be addressed by independent editors. There may be WP:COI issues involved - but the point remains valid. It's a shame that someone hasn't come forward to say "Thank you for creating this article on an important record producer, but we'd like you to make this change...." - but that's life, I guess. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle - Thank you for your comments. This biography revision was an honest attempt to expand the information available to Wikipedia readers on Sandy Roberton as I felt the original article you created did not, to me at least, seem to do justice to the huge breadth of his career and his influence on the shape of the music industry over the last 60 years. If there are referencing issues I can only apologise, that is purely down to my inexperience. Quite honestly, I thought I had produced more than enough explanatory Notes and References for it to be acceptable to Wikipedia standards but if not please feel free to improve it further without lessening the information I put into it. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is that, unless "the huge breadth of his career and his influence on the shape of the music industry over the last 60 years" is reflected in reliable sources, it should not be included here - regardless of your own personal opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and your "Notes" are completely unreferenced - there is no way of a reader knowing if they are accurate. Apart from the Plainsong book and the obituaries, there is very little else among your references that would pass the test of being "reliable sources". I created the article based on what I believed to be reliable sources at that time - they were very few - but you have added a vast amount of material, most of which doesn't seem to be referenced at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I can see from your User Page that you are vastly more experienced than I am on Wikipedia so your comments and criticisms are well accepted here. Thank you for the cleanup edits you have already made to improve this entry. In relation to Notes, I didn’t realise that information provided in Notes also has to have all the references in there too…I will systematically go back through them all and add the appropriate sources.

I also note your huge interest in music articles so hopefully we are on common ground.

I need to ask you a question about how best to reference some of the personal information about Sandy Roberton that I put into this expansion article. Though retired, I actually work in the music industry on a consultancy basis. In fact I have been working for the last 18 months on a couple of projects with both Iain Matthews and Andy Roberts, and that included direct contact with Sandy Roberton before his death.

Through Andy I have a direct line to Dinah Roberton who happily provided invaluable information for this article on her husband. It came by personal email, not via a published source so how do I reference that? Can I put something like “Personal communication from Dinah Roberton, email, 19 September”.Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronaldo1948 Please note that it is a core policy on Wikipedia that readers must be able to verify all the information in articles. Personal communications to editors are therefore unusable and would be considered original research. The only way to include such material is if it is published in a reliable source elsewhere. For simple facts, that can include the subject's own website (the policy is WP:ABOUTSELF) since that will be archived at the Wayback machine long-term. As an aside, one of the things that is not a purpose of Wikipedia is to be a memorial site. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle: Thank you for all your helpful comments on this revision of Sandy Roberton's Wikipedia biography. They are very appreciated.

With regard to references I have been though the whole thing systematically adding reference sources to every body text section and to the Notes; and in the correct format that you showed me.

There are now 80 references compared to 22 in the original. That surely is more than enough?

I have removed one of the Quote boxes completely and shortened the wording in the others. I have also removed and rewritten anything that I thought might be classed as 'peacock' wording.

Inevitably it could be viewed as reading like an obituary or memorial since it is written just a few months after the subject's death, but the revision now is essentially a series of facts about Roberton's life and his contribution to the music industry, all written in chronological order, and providing much more detail than your original from several years ago.

I hope that all of my responses to your initial review comments have demonstrated my willingness to address the editorial deficiencies and as such I would now ask you to please remove those four "This article has numerous issues" notices at the beginning. Thank you. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.... and again. I'll add a few templates to the page and warn the editor responsible, Ronaldo1948. The newly-expanded article, as it currently stands, is full of unreferenced text and peacock wording, but I will start an improvement process and hope that other editors engage, so as to bring it back to an acceptable encyclopedic standard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noy sure I exactly understand what you mean by 'peacock wording' ? Can you explain your comment please ? Ronaldo1948 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PEACOCK - it's an over-emphasis on someone's positive attributes, rather than giving a factual and neutral summary of information in previously published sources, which is what Wikipedia does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of peacock language, it’s not a term I was conversant with. If you would be prepared to itemise which parts of the article led you to that comment, I will happily rewrite them, hopefully to an acceptable Wikipedia standard.

Thank you. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you have stopped editing the article, I will try to run through the whole article and make the changes that I think are necessary. The article is open to anyone to edit (including myself) - you should not in any way think that you are responsible for making changes - that is not how Wikipedia works. If you disagree with another editor's changes, they can be discussed on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned I have finished editing the article, bar one thing : I have twice added in a reference on the point about Gary Osborne being the principal lyricist on the War Of The Worlds album. Twice it has been removed and replaced with ‘citation needed’….why? What exact is wrong with this Prabook reference?

Please do go through it all now and make the edits you feel are necessary to get rid of those issues notices. Thanks for all your help and advice so far. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronaldo, Prabook is unreliable for several reasons. One is that it’s an openly editable wiki, with no editorial review or reputation for fact checking. As such, it’s a user generated source. The content that doesn’t come from users is often scraped from other unreliable sources, like Marquis Who’s Who (see the entry about Marquis at WP:RSP). Other times, the content on Prabook is scraped from Wikipedia itself. Best, Politanvm ^talk 13:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, the explanation is much appreciated. It was the only decent article I could find that mentioned his role on that album so rather than search again I think I will simply remove that point as in reality it’s not that critical to the article. Ronaldo1948 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]