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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
