Talk:Tommy Roberts (sports broadcaster)

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.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

i do not understand why references are failing verification. BlooDHorse for example is the most important horse racing Publication in the country, yet it fails verification in any section of the artcle where it is referenced. The article in the magazine gives the entire background Of Roberts startup of it. yet it fails verification. i need your assistance. ThanksMonmouth1946 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monmouth1946: If you've included a URL - a web address - in a reference, the page that it links to should have content that enables the reader to verify the statement that the reference is there to support. You shouldn't have the URL of the home page of a website (such as newspapers.com) for example unless that home page contains the supporting material. If there's a page somewhere else within a website that has that material then the URL should take the reader directly to that page. If the website does not have any supporting material, but for instance the print version of the publication had coverage many years ago, then change the 'cite web' template to 'cite news' and give the date, page number and title of the article in that print publication. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failed

I have changed the references to the correct format. (Hopefully). Will you be kind enough to take a look. Appreciate theme help.. Thank You Monmouth1946 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Roberts (sport broadcaster)

I want to change title to sports broadcaster. right now it reads sport broadceaster. i have tried to change it with no success. would someone help. Thamy YouMonmouth1946 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Howdy hello! The tone of this article is far too informal, I've already removed the peacocking phrase "In 1983 Roberts created a concept that would forever change the face of wagering on horse races worldwide". Many other peacocking and non-neutral phrasings exist. Please cleanup. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tigraan:. I think this edit might be over-zelous cleaning. The bit about what Club 18 was adds colour, and if you take it away then the paragraph ceases to present any interest to the reader. For the second paragraph, Patty Page selling millions of copies worldwide isn't puffery - the article isn't about her, and if it is a fact then I don't see a problem with it? Similarly by taking out "successful entertainer" that paragraph no longer has any interest to the reader. It becomes a case of 'he promoted a song, so what?' It is that he went with his hunch and promoted the song that launched her career. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curb Safe Charmer. Well, I think both edits are improvements even if the end result is not optimal. We should not be "adding colour", but rather removing it (WP:WIKIVOICE, "prefer nonjudgmental language"). If a sentence has no interest when the peacock feathers are plucked off, then the sentence should be removed. The Dylan example in WP:PEACOCK is IMO very parallel to "successful entertainer", for instance - either we put in objective facts or we leave out entirely.

For Club 18, I think it could be removed entirely, but I cannot look at the source right now, so I would rather leave a "so what" sentence if someone (wink) can turn it into something encyclopedic.

For Tennessee Waltz, it should probably be kept with some discussion along what you just wrote (i.e. that TR demonstrated good judgment/intuition in picking up that particular song/artist). I suspect it's what the source says more or less (but again cannot check). I do not think "millions sold" is good: we have a wikilinked article for those who want to know more, and even if we keep something there, it should be "[precise numer] copies sold", not some unspecified number of millions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]