Talk:Family in advertising/Archives/2012

In light of 'Single Parent' article

From the 'Single Parent' article I learned the following: be selective with how you break down your topic into sections, link to entries within wikipedia as much as you can, and do not be America-biased -- so provide facts on other countries as well. I will be sure to apply all of this to our 'Family in Advertising' page.

Pittsoc25 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I really like the outline that you guys have developed. You have a really great start and I feel like your article could go really far. Have you ever thought about tieing in other forms of media too? Are you planning on just focusing on television ads or other ads such as magazines and newspapers? In light of possibly talking about other medias I feel like you could incorporate a lot with television shows too. For instance, I think you could talk about how the family has been portrayed in shows such as Seventh Heaven, and even with the newer comedy realm including a show such as Modern Family. When I think about these, I feel like they themselves are a form of advertising. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. We intend to include other forms of media besides just tv advertising. I will definitely explore the idea of incorporating fictional television into the article.

Alimosser61 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Note on a potential for front page exposure

Please note that your article may be eligible for WP:DYK, and 5 extra credit points, if you expand it 5x within a 5 days time. Let me know if you have any questions, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference review

Please add page numbers to book publications. Murray could also use page number(s), and publisher info. If it is a thesis, it should be clearly stated, with information like the year, institution, supervisor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please add links to journals/news articles (they are always online), and to books (on Google Print, preferably linking to specific book pages; see for example how it is done in the joint custody article]]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the example and for the information on links.

Alimosser61 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction section

It should not start with a heading and it should not provide any new information, just a summary of the rest of the article. See [[[Wikipedia:Lead]] and how it is done in articles such as joint custody (United States) or grounds for divorce (United States). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We're still finishing up the body of the article and so we're planning on writing the introduction last based on the rest of the information we add. Thanks for the examples. I will take down the heading.

Alimosser61 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

File:Ikea 2000s.jpeg is missing a source. It's good to use Google CC search, but you need to provide direct link to the original website (page) that the picture was found on (source is missing). That page should also contain a proof of CC license, or you can provide a link to another page with such a proof ("all pictures on this site are CC" or such). File:KellogsAdFamily1977.jpg has a source, and it is indeed from a CC flicker page. However, I have my doubts that the page makes a correct claim; I am afraid somebody might have just taken a non-free image and stuck it on flickr under CC. Good finds for pre-1923 ones; those would be in public domain so they do not (should not) be licensed under CC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Update. As was explained to me here and here (live and learn...), may pre-1978 ads would be in public domain, but we need to find the entire page to prove there was no copyright notice. With the Kellogs image, which does not give us the source, there is a chance copyright line was cropped (cut). It has been suggested we should replace the Kellogs image with an image that we can find through Google Book magazine that we can clearly cite in the sources, and prove there was no copyright. See the above links for how-to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. Please ensure your lead does that. Also, the title (Family in advertising) should be bolded in the first sentence of the lead.
• the titles of various sections are improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• reference density is insufficient. Every sentence should be referenced, unless it is truly obvious (per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue).

  Work in progress Pittsoc25 (talk)

• see also section should not have links to items already mentioned in the text>

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• Blair reference is missing publisher and date

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• Current News Article reference is missing author and date

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• "American Advertising: A Brief History" ref is missing author, date and publisher

  Cannot find date; Author and publisher addressed Pittsoc25 (talk)

• Prieler reference is missing a date

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• An Introduction to Media Literacy (Report) ref is missing author and a date

  Cannot find a date; It is by no single author but rather an institution: "the New Mexico Media Literacy Project". The citation page said that reports needn't have an author. Pittsoc25 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Brown reference is missing a date

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• Irvine reference is missing publisher and a date

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk)

• Brown, Bruce would benefit from splitting into multiple references, one for each page range

  Issue has been addressed Alimosser61 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• all references should have an url to journal or book (on Google Books)

  Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the suggestions. I attempted to fix the titles. Do they look correct now? We will fix the rest of the issues in as timely a manner as possible.

Alimosser61 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now. Please note that the image issues I noted in the section above need to be addressed quickly, or some of the images will be deleted. It would be a shame if that happens. Let me know if you need any assistance with this. The article seems rather comprehensive, the only questions I'd have would be less from sociology and more from the marketing side: how effective are family advertisements compared to others? What percentage of advertising is one that involves family, and has it increased, decreased or remained stable over the past few decades? How much $ is being spend on them? I wonder if you were able to find that information in your sources; if not, please see if you can find any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family in advertising/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Initial quick review:

1. Deal with the tags at the top about world scope and links. The links one should be quick and easy
2. Refs come after punctuation, not before; and there is no space between the ref and the punctuation

   Issue has been addressed Alimosser61 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

3. One ref link is broken

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

4. The Italian image needs a source and how do we know it's not copyrighted? It's from IKEA.

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

5. The Kellog's image says some rights reserved on Flickr. How do we know it's not copyrighted?

   Issue Addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

6. A proper lead is a summary. It will need few if any refs

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

7. See also should be in alphabetical order

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

8. Refs that are web sites should have the "accessdate=" parameter and those that are PDFs should have "format=PDF". Ensure you keep date format consistent through the article and refs

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

9. Some refs are missing publishers. Web refs should at a minimum have url, publisher, title, accessdate.

   Issue addressed by group Pittsoc25 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

10. Run the three tools in the upper right toolbox on this page and fix the issues

 Done PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When done with the above, we'll look at content. PumpkinSky talk 15:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to review this article. We will address these issues as soon as possible.

Alimosser61 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing 'Family in Marriage'. We appreciate your input.

Pittsoc25 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See [1], anything with a URL gets |accessdate= parameter. I also uppercased PDF. I don't know if that's required but PDF looks better in uppercase. PumpkinSky talk 14:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Now to content:

1. "until after the revolution" begs the question what revolution. Change that using "Afterwards,..." or specify the industrial revolution.

    DoneI changed it to specify the industrial revolution. Alimosser61 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Add ref to the end of the paragraph ending in "...they will be insufficient in their role as mother."

   Deleted example that required citation because I couldn't find a source. Pittsoc25 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3. In "Family affects us significantly", why is family in italics?

    DoneThe italics have been removed. Alimosser61 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

4. "abouthat there have been years in which that steady decline has been interrupted, including 1945 and 1960."...does it say why?

    DoneIt did give I reason but I'm not sure now that this sentence is all that pertinent to the article anyway so I just got rid of it. Alimosser61 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

5. mothers and fathers don't need linking, everyone knows about them see WP:OVERLINK

    DoneI tried to get rid of all of the over-linking. Alimosser61 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

6. This is rather Euro/North Ammerica - centric. While there are a couple sentences about Asia, can you add more, especially in history, about this topic in Asia, Africa, South America, and/or island nations? PumpkinSky talk 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been trying to expand the article to a more world wide view but have not been able to find any academic sources giving information on family in advertising in places besides the US and other industrialized nations. What do you suggest?

Alimosser61 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no sources for globalization of the article, then we cannot require that information. I am not seeing any relevant sources that suggest major gaps in coverage... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask Piotrus. In the meantime I'll poke around. PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Alimosser61 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's enough, barely, to justify covering a more diverse world view, but if you want to ever go for FA you'll need to find more. I had trouble finding more on this too. You do mention Asian countries a few times, etc. Nice work. I've marked it as GA and a bot should remove it from GAC.PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for all of your great input on this!

Alimosser61 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. PumpkinSky talk 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally marked something as vandalism

I was looking over your article and apparently marked something as vandalism accidentally. Sorry if that caused any confusion it should be reverted now! Sorry again! --Kgw2 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Alimosser61 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)