Talk:Family in advertising/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family in advertising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415054354/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0417102-215042/unrestricted/Burke_thesis.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0417102-215042/unrestricted/Burke_thesis.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.getcited.org/pub/101601192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Family in advertising/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. Hopefully the review will begin soon. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you

---

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made --Whiteguru (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

 

---

Observations

• Internet Archive bot was run on this page; 9 references were linked to archives.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Reference 3 goes to the front page of Project Muse, not the article.
• Reference 4 is a dead link
• Reference 15, 16, 17, 20, 22 are dead links. The IA bot has been run on the page. These are likely permanent dead links.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The family symbol in advertising is presumptive. Use of images of family are signs, painting, not symbols. There are repeated references to the family as symbol.
• The History section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay
• The main paragraph (para 3) of the Function section is an argumentative essay and does not present facts. It is arguing about consumer buying behaviour

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• This article is written as an essay and seeks to promote the role of family in advertising. It is not written as an encyclopedic article. There is no inherent neutrality in the article.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• This article has been created and curated by two SPA accounts. See here and here.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• 7 Up - You like it, it likes you, 1948.jpg = This image was taken from Flickr's The Commons
• Cheney's expectorant.jpg = is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1926
• Hacovon Liquid Soap 1920.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

1. Overall:

• This article has multiple issues: the tags below need resolution, the article needs significant rewriting. It is likely to lose GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.