This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while following the promotion of noitulovE to FA status, but I'm looking to jump back into the deep end and push this article to the same point. I'm particularly looking for any help with copy editing or general tightening of the prose, but any comments are welcome. I'll do my best to respond to any queries or suggestions. Thanks in advance, GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is very close to FAC and I have very few comments, mostly nit-picky, because it is already in very good shape. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
This has a fair number of red links for FAC - if these are notable (especially the awards) perhaps they should have articles, even stubs
- It's a sad fact, but refless stubs on advertising topics get deleted. Fast. I'm not up for writing lengthy pieces on the tangential articles at the moment, and WP:REDLINK applies.
In Production I would identify Tim Piper as the art director again - everyone else is identified by role in that sentence. I know he ID'ed earlier, but I had to search to find what he did.
- Done.
Betts - any chance of identifying a children's show or two she has worked on?
- Added credit for Producing Parker
The budget is given in the infobox, but I would give it again in the Production section. Might also be useful to compare this figure to "average" commercial budgets - was it cheap or average or expensive? I realize this might be unavailable, but any idea what individuals got paid for their parts in this?
- Added in Background section. The budget was incredibly paltry, but it'd be hard to find sources for the average campaign spend in 2005 - they vary too widely, and most aren't reported.
The advert was a startling success online and was .. seems a bit POV
- Reworded.
I would cite ..was discussed by a number of mainstream television programmes, including Good Morning America, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and The View, and news networks such as CNN, NBC, and ABC News,..
- Cited.
First two pararaphs of Slob Evolution section need cites. Also not clear to me what the purpose of the link was The web address to which the parody directed people who saw it was "www.campaignagainstreallife.com". put this into context
- Removed, wasn't that relevant.
Also need cites for the whole last Ruddy Hell... paragraph
- Description from primary source, policy allows it to act as its own ref.
Also a bit POV Following the huge level of interest in Evolution, post-production company SoHo released a five-minute making-of documentary... perhaps OK as a direct quote?
- Pretty sure it was a quote, but can't find the source. Reworded.
Any data on the effect on Dove's sales? This is after all an advertisement
- Added the increases in Dove and Unilever sales in the period following the release of Evolution, though tying it solely to the ad would constitute OR
Over all very well done and I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it took over half a year, but I finally got round to addressing these comments. Thanks for pointing out the more blinding errors I made when writing up the piece :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)