Talk:Pino Rucher

Text with inappropriate tone
Significant parts of this article text may have been copied from elsewhere? At any rate, they are significantly at variance with the normal encyclopaedic tone. See for example the rhetorical questions at the start of the Pino_Rucher section. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear AllyD,

I made the changes you suggested time ago. Emilurex (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sections copied from the Italian Wikipedia page
It appears that various sections in this article are effectively translated copies of the it:Pino Rucher article text. If so, these should be attributed here: see Template:Translated page. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article improvements

 * Some notes, following from a request on my Talk page:
 * In Pino_Rucher a WP:POV text about "distinguishing himself for his remarkable exhibitions and solos" is unsupported by references.
 * In Pino_Rucher, a stack of references appear at the end of a list of musicians. Seven of these eight references are to a Blogspot site, which is not considered a WP:RS here. If better references were found, they should be associated with each individual name.
 * That same list of musicians should make clear which were performances as one of the members of the RAI Big Band and which were individual collaborations.
 * The 3rd paragraph of Pino_Rucher contains WP:POV text: "distinguished himself", "being at ease", "brilliant performance", "skilful guitar ideas". Each such claim would need strong references but the whole paragraph is instead supported only by another Blogspot link, this time to a Rita Pavone Fan club blog photo-page - which is also being used to support qualitative opinion ("noticeably spiced with some jazz flavour") in the Collaborations section.
 * The Pino_Rucher and Pino_Rucher sections are unsupported by any references. Stylistically, are these name-lists needed anyway? It is article text which should carry the weight.


 * A broader comment is that these two list sections and those which follow read like a homage site, with unsupported original research about what people said. Again, it is worth considering whether this is appropriate encyclopaedic content, or whether the earlier fact-based sections suffice to make a better article. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear AllyD,

I made the changes you suggested. There are many musicians and artists that released interviews (and written declarations) on their artistic relationship with Pino Rucher. On the other hand, some of these people participated in public events where they paid their homage to him (see Omaggio a Pino Rucher, una vita per la chitarra / Homage to Pino Rucher, a life for the guitar and Soundtracks – A tribute to Pino Rucher). Emilurex (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is good that the Blogspot references have been removed, and also that some of the name lists have been removed. A large proportion, however, continues to read like a tribute rather than a WP:NPOV encyclopaedia article, for example the "Omaggio a Pino Rucher, una vita per la chitarra" section which reads like a local newspaper event report. There is also text which describes a reference rather than utilising it, for example the sentence describing the Tom Lord discography, the section on "Le corde del West" and that on "Raro!". Overall, more focus is needed on singular presentation of the plain facts of the subject's work on soundtracks, for example, rather than recurring in the Raro and Soundtracks sections. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear AllyD,

I have removed other non neutral wording according to user Melcous's avice. I have also removed some information from the text of the article and placed it in the notes.

Kind regards, Emilurex (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The most recent changes, especially 's pruning edits on 23 May, such as removing such expressions as "genial inspiration", have gone along way to addressing the inappropriate tone. There still remains more that can be done, as per my 15 May note above. There is still material in the main article which is describing references (the Lord discography, the Becker book) rather than simply utilising them; in addition, a layer of meta-description of references has been introduced as "Notes". The "Awards" section still consists largely of local-newspaper-type reportage of who said what at local events. Better to stick to supported facts: in 2008 a street in the subject's home town was named; in 2010 the local authorities supported a commemorative event in his home town; and no need to again editorialise about the article in Raro, which should serve simply as a reference for the article. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , another comment on references and attribution: presumably a direct Raro link is not possible, as it is no longer publishing, but the "musicmagazine" references are now linking to a http://www.pinorucher.it/raro.html page which summarises the Raro material so is effectively a primary source, though I see a scan .rar file is also available there: better to link just to a pdf if possible. Also on a related topic regarding that site and images previously uploaded as "Pino Rucher's private collection": it is worthwhile to WP:DISCLOSE any external affiliations here regarding the subject, even non-commercial, for clarity. AllyD (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the external links to this talk page. Emilurex (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear AllyD,

I made the changes you suggested time ago. Please, have a look at them. Yours sincerely, Emilurex (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does read much better now, and can probably lose the maintenance tags. There are a couple of references to Discogs, which is not a reliable source, but these are minor supporting references. My remaining concern is that I raised above about references to the http://www.pinorucher.it site, and I notice that the page which formerly hosted a .rar file has been replaced by a .pdf file since my previous comment. That is useful, but draws my concern that the site is being adapted to meet the requirements here. That the particular material is a copy of something first published elsewhere avoids the WP:SELFCITE problem, but it remains my view that a note on this page should be used to note affiliation regarding that site, with the aim of transparency. AllyD (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)