Talk:Roundy's/Archives/2017

Edits of this date
Lots of issues with this article, the two largest being:
 * There was, and to an extent, still is, a lot of WP:OR (unsourced material that has been added as a result of personal editor experience ["I know there are stores..."] or editor research [web research that is reported without sources being given]);
 * The sourcing that appears is in some cases unreliable—for instance, note (i) the edit moving the Chicago Trib article to Further reading, after it was found to support none of the specific content in the two sentences preceding it in the paragraph, and (ii) the citation now indicated as a dead link, which, appearing at end of paragraph, was assumed to cover the whole paragraph, but can actually be used to verify none of it.

A look at the Edit history revealed the nature of the problem. All early material was posted, en masse, without sources. As a result, some business updates have been done from sources (see material most recent, about acquisitions, IPO, and retirement), and this is fine. 'Alternatively, however, early material has been sourced post hoc (forensically, I term it, where sources are sought to support content in place), and this work has largely been poor—citations generally supportive were placed ("I found an exec highlight on this CEO, so we know he existed."), but that support essentially none of the specific factual content of the sentences.

This is not my area of technical expertise, nor is it my area of business, so I may look back on this, or may not have time. The bottom line is that the article needs a top to bottom review, to verify content, finding sources and editing content so it matches the found sources, and not leaving in place historical content that cannot be specifically verified. That is, a citation that makes clear that CEOs "X" and "Y" existed (Bloomberg profiles) does not substantuate/source text that says CEO "X" became ill and was succeeded by CEO "Y".

This is all basic scholarly writing, but clearly it has not been applied here, consistently, from the earliest days of the article. Thanks to late editor's who have done things right. Good luck remediating the rest of the issues. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)