Talk:Åke Parmerud

poor sourcing-style
I disagree with this assessment. Sources include embassy web pages and those associated with various festivals and cultural organizations. Only a small amount of the information is sourced to the author's bio page and most of that is collaborated with other sources. This is not a resume. What is needed.. gossip? Ill only agree that it is missing more general biographical information but that is only because I could not find it in a published source.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is presently only one cited source that is not either the composer's own webpage, or press releases from various organizations promoting his music. The London Sinfonietta page is actually both of these things, since it contains only a copyedited version of the composer's biography, lifted straight off of his webpage (this has the appearance of "ballot stuffing" the sources). The lone exception is a review in a provincial American newspaper, primarily devoted to an eccentric performance of a J. S. Bach cello suite. If you are having trouble finding reliable third-party sources, I would suggest you restore the two you removed in a recent edit described as "rewrote article".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the deleted sources, and added a list under "Further reading" that should provide plenty of grist for future milling. In the process, I have reverted the article to the previously established parenthetical referencing style, per this guideline, and also added a new section on musical style. A little wikifying and re-titling section headers helped with the resumé-like appearance. As a result, I think the problems have been corrected, and so I have removed the banners.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources have information from the guy's own page. But reliable sources refers to who publishes, not where they appear to get their information from. In other words, if the London Sinfonetta and the Swedish embassy find the information reliable enough to reprint under their own sites, that's a reliable source. The idea is that they checked it out and found it good. It would be like them doing an interview and publishing that information. I used those varied sources even though the mostly say the same thing, in part to show that various other organizations find the information trustworthy.


 * By the way, I have NEVER seen that reference format. Can you show me where on WP's citation pages that format is shown to be an acceptable one? Thelmadatter (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The key word here is not "reliable", but "third-party" (or "secondary") sources. Press releases from concert-sponsoring organizations are almost always actually written by the sponsored individual or his/her agent, and so are first-party sources. This does not mean that they are unreliable entirely—only that they cannot be relied upon for objectivity or to establish notability. As to the reference format, I have already given you two links, to parenthetical referencing, and to this guideline. You may also care to check the FAQ at the head of this talk page, and try searching the archives there, using keywords such as "parenthetical", "Harvard", and "author-date". For examples of composer-biography articles using parenthetical referencing, you might look at Milton Babbitt, Béla Bartók, Johannes Fritsch, Luigi Nono, Arnold Schoenberg, or Francesco Maria Veracini. It is very likely that you have actually read articles on Wikipedia that use this format without noticing it, because it is so unobtrusive compared with footnotes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)