Wikipedia:Peer review/Burger King advertising/archive2

Burger King advertising

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring it to GA status and complete the set of articles to bring the subject to good topic status. A fresh pair of eyes would help substantially.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a vast article so I'll probably give comments from a top level and re-review if requested.

If you insist on referring to the company as BK, at least put (BK) after the first time you mention Burger King.
Infobox has spaced hyphens, it should use spaced en-dashes (per WP:DASH).
This is the case throughout the article as well, I'll try to pick up some of the as I go.
infobox, Fast Food is not a proper noun, Fast food is fine.
"ad agencies" -> "advertising agencies"
" flop Where's Herb?." avoid double period.
"1970s/1980s " 1970s and 80s.
"Where is your God now?." avoid double period.
"the 18-35 demographic" needs an en-dash.
From the TOC, what's going on with the section headings? Looks like something needs to be fixed here.
Also not sure why you're only allowing level 1 headings, at least allow level 2.
You link Star Wars twice to different articles, perhaps consider the second link being Star Wars series or something.
"The relationship with George Lucas' Lucasfilm, LTD." don't think you need George Lucas' here...
"in which Gellar stated that" in which she stated..
"of a whopper" shouldn't whopper be capitalised here?
There is also an article on it.
Images, like the Van Eede one, should be either just thumb for landscape or thumb|upright for portrait images. Don't force images any bigger/smaller in the main article.
General Market -> General market.
"1958–68 - Hume" should be an en-dash before Hume (see others).
"2001–2002" should be "2001–02" to be consistent.
Heading - Modern Campaigns -> Modern campaigns (per WP:HEAD).
"One of it major" its.
Rewrite "Other media" section so it's prose rather than bullet points.
"May 1, 1969-April 30, 1994" spaced en-dash needed here.
circular is a dab link.
You use HJ without explanation.
Is it worth a minor note explaining why Hungry Jacks is used instead of Burger King in certain locations?
Is the Children's logo section a different format to the others? The text is smaller. Be consistent.
What does QSR mean?
Second para of Non-product oriented advertising is unreferenced.
Children's advertising section is woefully lacking in references.
A lot of detail on the individual members of the Kid's Club characters, probably a little over the top.
Media Tie-ins -> tie-ins.
"McDonald's\Ty Beanie Babies" odd angled slash, surely /?
Don't mix date formats in the references.
Ensure online references are comprehensive, i.e. have publisher info, access dates, etc. (e.g. look at ref 69, it has nothing)
Publications like Time should be in italics.
Many external links appear unnecessary for this specific article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you greatly for the review, Ill hopefull get back to this after I return from the Christmas break. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Have a good Christmas. Feel free to ping me in the future when you get back to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]