Talk:Fairplex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

I've emailed the public relations people at Fairplex in the hope that they might be able to fix up this article. Kevin 11:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Verified?

Everything in this article is verifiable at the official Fairplex web site, which is one of the article's links. I see no reason why the "not verified" template shouldn't be removed. Does any editor of the article object to the removal? Whyaduck 15:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not gone through the edit history, but the odds are that it was a "drive-by" dispute tagging by someone who has never edited the article other than adding the template,and has never edited on the talk page. I'd say check the data against the website, and if everything matches, then either add an inline reference to the Fairplex website to the second paragraph with most of the statistics (or better yet, the webpage on the Fairplex website with most of the statistics), or add a <ref> link and a Reference section. Then delete the not verified template. ^BlankVerse 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I did a bit of rewriting after I found that quite a bit of the earlier article read as though copied and pasted from back pages of the Fairplex website. I'm guessing my rewrite is sufficiently different in its phrasing to avoid any accusations of copyvio (though it might still read in part like an advertisement.) Somebody might want to check on that, though. Whyaduck 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One reason for that is it that from an examination on the articles edit history, and a look at some of the IPs, it looks like people from Fariplex have been editing this article. ^BlankVerse 09:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW: The edits looks good. It's too bad that I couldn't find a good logo on their website. ^BlankVerse 11:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)