Talk:The Encyclopedia of Popular Music
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.
|
Status section
[edit]The sentence "The Encyclopedia of Popular Music is the most authoritative source on rock, pop and jazz artists ever written." This is speculative/qualitative because of the word authoritative. The sentence should be removed in my opinion or altered to something like comprehensive, even that would require a citation and that would be hard to prove. The whole status section should be removed or changed because that sentence is not good. Burnedfaceless (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.141.34 (talk) I really don't understand why. I have many, many reviews and citations in a large box in my garage. Check out what The Times said, or Rolling Stone, or The Library Journal, or Record Collector, or Mojo, or Q Magazine or the Times Weekend Magazine. This is not me bragging, it is a fact that others (not me) have stated printed. If you really want to challenge this I suggest you disprove the statement. I am not prepared to go through dozens and dozens of reviews and citations received over 16 years to prove this - it really speaks for itself.Colin Larkin (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)