Talk:Fairplex

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early conversation[edit]

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)[reply]

Not Verified?[edit]

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)[reply]

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. ^Blank ^Verse 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^Blank ^Verse 09:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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