Talk:Evolution (Dove)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution (Dove) article.
Article policies
Good article Evolution (Dove) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 20, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Copied section from Evolution (ad)

What do I do when important sources are on an artist myspace blog, and wikipedia doesn't allow linking to myspace blogs?

What exactly are these sources? Post them on the talk page at minimum. Diemunkiesdie 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.

  1. "the Film Grand Prix and two Gold prizes at the London International Awards,[18]," Remove the comma after the inline citation.
  2. "...and was produced on a budget of £2000 by production company Blink Productions." Add an inline citation for the budget amount.
  3. "and has since climbed to 1 million." Can a source be provided for this figure?
  4. "After bras are removed" Fix the wikilink for "bras" it currently goes to a dab page.
  5. Wherever you think appropriate, include some more brief information about the Dove Self-Esteem Fund.
  6. Again, if possible, see if any free images can be found relating to the topic.

This article covered the ad well and the video was quite interesting to watch. The article didn't have too many problems, and the above issues shouldn't take long to fix. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed most, but again, no free use images around. I might try to get in touch with Ogilvy&Mather, see if they'd be willing to provide a shot of the trophy or of one of the names mentioned in the article. Couldn't find the refs I used for the budget and viewing figures for Slob Evolution, so I've removed them. I suspect it was from The Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns Vol 2. by Thomas Riggs, which has a section on the Campaign for Real Beauty, but I don't have ready access to it any more. If and when I can check, I'll re-add the figures. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Good job with addressing the above issues, so I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If you can get a free image that would be great, so best wishes in getting permission. I have worked with multiple film/actor articles, and I know how difficult it can be to get free images. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced and neutral. Also, see if there are any related WikiProject banners that can be added to this talk page.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status (these articles on the ad campaigns are interesting to read!). If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I ran out of space in my edit summary for the latest changes, which altered content submitted by User:66.28.244.34. I'll summarise them here:

  1. The piece itself is Canadian, and the primary author of the article is British, so Commonwealth English (deodourant, centred) should be used per the Manual of Style
  2. A few other changes per the MoS: Removed definite articles from the section headers, and commas have been moved back outside quotation marks. I may've shifted some outside italics marks by mistake; if so, feel free to revert em back again.
  3. One fact (Betts being unrecognisable after the workup) needs a cite. I've added a tag for now, but I'll fix it myself when I get back home.
  4. Switched "278,000 distinct times" to "received 280,000 hits". The former reads slightly oddly to me.

All other content changes look like improvements to me, so I've left them as was :) 62.231.146.140 (talk) - GeeJo not signed in