Talk:Philip Glassborow

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Rowena360 (talk · contribs) has been paid by 360 Integrated PR on behalf of Philip Glassborow. COI disclosure can be found User:Rowena360.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [see below]

Untitled[edit]

Hi, I am Rowena from 360 Integrated PR. I have been hired by Philip Glassborow to update and flesh out his wikipedia page, as it was out of date, lacking citations and didn't include any images. I have created a draft which is located is here. I have done my best to remain neutral and provide additional factual, non-advertorial additional content with appropriate citations. I have also reorganised existing content into appropriate categories to improve the look of the page.

In line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, I would like to request that someone looks at this draft with the view that it could replace the current entry. I am very open to suggestions, edits and recommendations, so please do let me know if you would like me to make these. I would also appreciate guidance on the next steps after the draft has been reviewed (as I know typically Wikipedia would prefer COI editors not to make edits themselves). Thanks in advance for your help! - Rowena360 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you have used in your draft are passing mentions or listings which confirm that he wrote things but do not support notability for which we require indepth coverage of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, thanks so much for your feedback. The documentation was also very useful. I have replaced the references you have referred to below in my draft. (In the case of the two music folios, I removed reference to these in the text as this could not be substantiated). Does this look any better? Rowena360 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a large number of passing mentions, blogs or listings with no in depth coverage of Glassborow. When writing for Wikipedia you need to collect up the in depth reliable sources in magazines and newspapers and then and summarise them in your own words, we don't start with a list of facts and details and then try to find sources for them. If there are no in depth sources then Wikipedia is not interested. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback again, Theroadislong. I am new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning and I appreciate the help. Would it be possible to get some more in depth guidance on what parts of the draft are good and which are bad/need substantiation? This will help me review the draft and hopefully produce something more watertight. Alternatively, is there anywhere I can go to get more help on honing the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowena360 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement of fact needs to be supported by a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, I have created a new heavily-revised version of the draft, taking out all unsubstantiated items (with the exception of the line about Jackanory Playhouse and the Vivian Ellis Prize, as Philip is mentioned on both relevant Wikipedia pages). I hope this is an improvement over the last draft and the current Wikipedia page. Is this draft any better? Happy to adjust if needed if this one is on the right lines.Rowena360 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources[edit]

[1] doesn't mention the subject at all.
[2] is just a passing mention.
[3], [4] and [5] are just listings
[[6]] and [7] are blogs and not reliable sources.
[8] and [9] are commercial links to purchase books and are not suitable.

You will need secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in depth.Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources from COI editor[edit]

[10] no mention of Glassborow
[11] confirms he wrote something but nothing else?
[12] better, in that there are two sentences about him but clearly not in-depth coverage.
[13] confirms he wrote something but nothing else.
[14] confirms he wrote something but nothing else.
[15] The only good source so far
[16] blogs are not usually considered reliable sources.
[17] no mention of him here.

You need sources that treat the topic in depth only one of these does so far. Rather than propose a whole new draft you would be better advised to suggest the addition of single sentences with suitable references. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, thanks for your comments and for your additions/modifications to the current entry. I have appreciated your help and support and I will pass your comments back to Philip. Rowena360 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, I was just wondering about images. I know two I added have been deleted, but posters of 'Great Big Radio Show' and 'Welcome to Terezin' are available in Wikicommons. Would these be good additions to this page? Rowena360 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowena360: In my opinion, the Great Big Radio Show will do, however, considering that the information to represent Welcome to Terezin was declined, and seeing as it is only talked about in a sentence or so, it would be better to leave the second picture out. Regards, VB00 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]