Talk:Radio advertisement/Archives/2012

Certified Professional Commercial Copywriter
Regarding my edit to this: "A certification program for radio copywriters — the Certified Professional Commercial Copywriter — was created for the Radio Advertising Bureau by Dan O'Day"

Apparently there was briefly a Wikipedia article on the certification program. Clickthrough indicates that the article has since been removed, as spam. The link is therefore not appropriate.

However, the reference may be. The program is truly offered by the RAB, the RAB is certainly an authoritative source worthy of mention in the article's context. Thus, their certification program is arguably meritorious.

But it raises the question as to where to draw the line. The RAB also has two Radio Marketing certification programs. Should they be included, too? What about all the other RAB content? Obviously not. So, although authentic, should this entire sentence be included? I won't presume to judge that.

The inclusion of Dan O'Day's name is also arguable. The RAB itself includes his name in their description, and he does have a substantial portfolio of radio work, so I've left him in, too. But there is more to Radio than the RAB. If this article grows to include references to other resources, for every "guru" mentioned there will be 10 arbitrarily omitted. At that point, this sentence might need "adjustment."

For now, let's draw the line to exclude overblown descriptions such as "the world's first" and "guru." Eplater (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Are so many crosslinks appropriate?
This regards crosslinks in general, in any article, not just this one. Are so many of them necessary? Articles are turning blue, ultimately becoming nothing but links, which disturbs concentration and readability. Maybe they should be limited to words where the link will provide relevant information? For example, in this article, a link to "disk jockey" would be appropriate. But what relevant information does the link to "Lake Michigan" provide? That it is normally filled with water? That the Royal Canadian Air Force would be violating U.S. airspace? That if the 25,000 cheering extras were equally distributed across Lake Michigan's surface, their density would be greater than one cheering extra per square mile? Eplater (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 Revisions
The major revisions to this entry over Thanksgiving weekend are due to the efforts of one of my Cyberspace Law students as part of a graded class assignment. Ericgoldman (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)