Talk:Roz Savage

Family Life

Any reason why there is nothing in here about her husband (possibly ex) in the background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.211 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Reprinted is an email I received:

I realise I may have caused a lot of confusion by using the ID rozsavage.

I am NOT Roz Savage.

Because I have lots of projects, I use a different username for each, choosing one which matches the subject. Likewise I use a variant of my domain for email, which also matches the subject, so that I can sort emails into subjects and filter out spam easily.

My name is Geoff Tomlinson, and I have written the article on Roz Savage because, having heard her speak, and realising that other ocean rowers had an entry, I felt that she deserved one also.

The article is not Autobiographical.

As this is the first time I have contributed to Wikipedia, I would be grateful for any suggestions as to how I can improve the article.

Many Thanks.

Accordingly, I am removing the autobiography tag from the page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At last I have got round to creating a less confusing account name. I am now going to deleting the Rozsavage account so that everything from now on will appear under my own name. Sorry for the confusion. Geoff2DoThat 09:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

sole vs solo

In the 'First Leg' section :

...she completed the first leg by finishing the Atlantic Rowing Race as the only sole female competitor...

It seems to me to say she is the only sole competitor is redundant. Maybe the writer meant to say she was the only solo female... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerroPerdido (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Inspirational does not have to mean glossing over of the details

There's a tendency with biographies of people who have achieved something, apparently against the odds, to highlight the hardships and gloss over the little details which might have placed them for success - not to diminish Roz's acheivment. Roz said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that she thought the race had cost about £70,000, that she felt she had got about £10,000 cash sponsorship, but that most of the funding had come from her divorce settlement - but that fact rarely gets a mention in articles about Roz. In fact little was made of it even in the Telegraph article. It is relevant. The average person simply could not finance an adventure like Roz's even with twice the sponsorship. Hard work and dedication are fine, but luck and money are also often an essential component in any venture.

"Management" Of the Roz Savage entry

Roz has asked me to keep an eye on "her" entry, to add factual information as events occur, and to watch fo errors that may creep in. My sources include her website and personal knowledge of her activities. When she states an intention publicly in her website, that is likely to be the only source for a citation here and it seems impractical to cite a specific blog entry which may,over time, become hard to find.

The pictures currently posted (19 September 2008) were placed by a supporter in good faith. However, they do not illustrate the entry as well as the preferred one which will show Roz rowing past Diamond Head in Hawaii.

I understand that no-one "owns" anything in the Wikipedia but it seems sensible to require accuracy and specificity. John C Kay (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - so a reference to a reliable source is required. Anything posted based on first-hand knowledge is considered original research, and should not be posted to any Wikipedia article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Researching citations is what I'm doing now. It's interesting that the question of citations arose only today after I had expressed difficulties with trying to change the picture. John C Kay (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia, and only a small fraction of those have been assessed as "B-class" status or better (one of the requirements of B-class is that the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary).

Articles get cleaned-up or at least tagged with cleanup notes as people get around to them. By asking questions about the article, it just got the cleanup notes added sooner rather than later. This is actually a good thing; it's usually harder to reference material after the fact - so by adding it now, you avoid (or at least greatly reduce) the risk of someone removing it outright as original research down the road. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn hard to track down some citations, especially from pre-internet years! John C Kay (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

At last I have been able to find time to do the citations which justify the stuff in Roz's page. I confess to knowing the lady but I have for over 50 years been a writer (by profession) of technical material of various sorts and well aware of the importance of verification. I think it would be reasonable, now, to remove the "conflict of interest" warning which exists only because I was open about my involvement. John C Kay (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "nofootnotes" tag, as the content is adequately addressed now. Can you also take a look at the items in the "Further reading" section? If they're redundant to the footnotes you've added (provide nothing additional), then they should be removed; or if they do provide more material, then they should be incorporated in as footnotes themselves.

For the COI tag, it will take a non-COI editor to review the article, the references, and to do some searching for additional references as well to ensure that any notable negative comments from reliable sources about the subject weren't omitted. Note: I'm NOT saying that there are any negatives that exist, this is a generic issue sometimes seen with COI editors - so it's a generic comment, not specific to you or Roz Savage. I'm only that if any exist and were omitted, then to maintain a NPOV then they should be added as well as any documented response to those by the subject of the article.

I don't have time right now, hopefully someone else can review this. If not, I may (hopefully) be able to work on it later this week or next. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some superfluous "Further Reading" items and corrected one that was mis-directed. Those that remain add colour to the main text. I have explained the Wikipedia philosophy to Ms. Savage and pointed out that I can only watch for any inaccuracies that might creep in and add new (and citationable) materal. I'm not even sure that I qualify as a "major contributor"; I did not create the entry and have made only a few additions to reflect actual events. John C Kay (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed COI Tag

I removed the COI tag after reviewing the article. The information presented is well-cited and factual. The more external links that can be used to "prove" information the less-likely it will get tagged as COI. --Petercorless (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed Pacific attempt

Information about her 10 day failed 2007 Pacific attempt and subsequent USCG helicopter rescue should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.229.183 (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Sadly, on her website she has posts from every year from 2005 to present, with the exception of 2007 where there are none. I don't see why her site or this site should leave out the failure, because I see nothing to be ashamed about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.229.183 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid point. The story was on the site until it was reorganised recently. I shall attempt to recover the information. John C Kay (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that the blogs between September 2006 and September 2007 got lost somewhere during the reorganization of her site due to (supposedly human) error. Only Roz can restore the missing bits and only if that's possible and when she can fit it in between other priorities.John C Kay (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)