Talk:Bill Cosby in advertising/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. See below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria To be honest, I'm inclined to quick-fail this article. There are a score of problems with it. I regret the possibility, since the main editor has assisted me in many of the articles I bring here for review, and because his articles are usually pretty good. I'm also usually more than willing to help editors when their articles aren't quite ready for GA, but this one isn't even close. It requires more than just a quick fix, or a copyedit, or improvements in its references.
 * I appreciate the changes you've made. Sorry I wasn't able to address them earlier; I've had a very busy weekend.  I no longer think that this article needs to be quick-failed because of the changes.  Later today or tomorrow I'll do my normal prose and source review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The prose is very weak. There are typos and grammar errors throughout.  For example, the very first word in the first section should be "an", not "a".  We essentially have a data dump here: overuse of direct quotes and I suspect too much close paraphrasing.  I think that you should at least explain who Cosby is, and you don't.  I could go on, but I suspect you get my point.
 * Pending. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead is too short and is too peacocky. The "Personality" section is misnamed; I think it needs to be restructured.  "Early Career" has a typo.  I don't get the "Integrity as an actor" section; perhaps it's misnamed as well.  I think it's more about Cosby's later career.
 * Lead pending
 * What would you suggest a section about the abstract qualities that have drawn advertisers to Cosby, independent of their product's own identity, be called?
 * Typo fixed.
 * When Cosby started endorsements, there was suggestion that one couldn't be a serious actor and shill for a product; that's since gone, albeit not because of his endorsements. The fact that Cosby endorsed so many products, and questions of his connection with "real" black people called some to question him. I've renamed the Integrity section to Criticism, all of the content qualifies as such or as a retort to criticism. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, and I agree with the name change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * You need to create a "Works cited" section and separate it from the "Notes".
 * Done. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * The sources look good, but many of them aren't formatted correctly. There are too many red error messages.  Also, the Pendergast refs are all formatted incorrectly; you should put it in a "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section and follow the convention in your "Notes" section.
 * Fixed. The article has been nominated for long enough that the template itself changed, requiring the title in abbreviated citations. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, you still need to fix the Pendergast refs. I can fix them for you if you like in the next day or so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * As stated above, there needs to be more information about Cosby himself. I think that there needs to be a "Background" section, about the history of the Advertising field and racism, and how Cosby helped change it.  This article really suffers from a lack of comprehensiveness.
 * I can find published works about blacks in German advertising, blacks in the American media in general, even a book specifically on Aunt Jemima as an advertising character. I cannot find any works discussing blacks in American advertising, aside from the Black Enterprise articles "Commercial success" (which partly leans to selling to African Americans) and "Star Struck". Even in Google Scholar, I'm turning up short, not that I could access most of these articles anyway. There simply have not been any significant works published about black endorsement in America. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's kind of a surprise to me. I took a course in college about Blacks in film (one of the few classes that actually changed my life), and watched a documentary called "Ethnic Notions", which details how Blacks are portrayed in cinema.  I remember that it has some information about advertising.  I'll take your word about not finding anything about black endorsements and blacks in advertising. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's kind of a surprise to me. I took a course in college about Blacks in film (one of the few classes that actually changed my life), and watched a documentary called "Ethnic Notions", which details how Blacks are portrayed in cinema.  I remember that it has some information about advertising.  I'll take your word about not finding anything about black endorsements and blacks in advertising. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * The anecdotes about Cosby's experiences with Coca-Cola better fits in the section about it. I don't think that the information about Fat Albert really fits there; it's belongs in the "Background" section.  I disagree with how this article is structured; why does "Jello" have its own section, and not "Coca-Cola".  I think it should be structured by parts of Cosby's career.  I could go on, but I won't.
 * Those sections weren't my idea, they were by user:Augsburgbeliever, who interestingly even edited the GA1 to reflect changes since. Given the major overlap between endorsements, the only fair way to break it up is by decade, which I've just added. I have removed the content about Fat Albert, it was a remainder from an earlier, shorter version where I was grasping for content.
 * Nice way to solve the problem. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I think that this article is a bit harsh on Cosby, which is unusual, since articles like this tend to be complimentary towards their subjects. I should be about how Cosby changed the advertising field, and how he changed it so that African Americans were able to successfully endorse commercial products.
 * I do make it clear that he chose to endorse companies with unpleasant histories (E F Hutton) and companies that have unintentionally made him (and themselves) look stupid and contradictory (Coca-Cola via New Coke), and I do include direct criticism of his place in African American culture. But I don't think any of this is undue. The story of those endorsements would be incomplete otherwise, and the criticism aligns with common critics of Cosby outside of advertising. (His views are represented in the Pound Cake speech, representing his differing identity and ideologies, which indirect explain why Mad Ave found him "safe" early on.)
 * Cosby helped open the door to African American endorsement, but it wasn't exclusively him in the early years. I'm unsure which article it was, but there were many one off (as opposed to Cosby's campaigns) where singers and athletes appeared. As mentioned above, there are very few works on black endorsement in advertising, and thus very little to place him in the grand scheme of things, without running into WP:SYNTH. --  Zanimum (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this explanation, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Has very little vandalism, and one main editor.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Just one image, but free and appropriately tagged.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * There has to be more images available, even if they're screen shots. Or an image of The Cosby Show cast, or of his other shows mentioned.  Other celebrities mentioned, like Nat King Cole.
 * Additional images added. I've tried to avoid non-free images, and the dubiously free unmarked PR images. --  Zanimum (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As I state above, I'm inclined to quick-fail this article. It's definitely not ready to be passed to GA.  I recommend that you remove it, work on it some more, and resubmit.  It certainly has a lot of potential to be an excellent article, but needs lots of work to get there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice job with the changes. I feel better about things now.  I'll do a copy-edit and review soon. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Review
Personality


 * 2nd paragraph: Overuse of quotations. Some of them aren't necessary.  You put quotes around a few words or phrases at a time, something you don't always have to do.  For example, you don't need to put quotes around "inconceivably arrogant" or "blow-ups", even though that's probably the original language in the source.  The reader can surmise that this is how Bergin thought of Cosby.  (What did Bergin direct Cosby in?  I think you should tell us.)
 * 3rd paragraph: Too many quotes. I think you could paraphrase the quote by Kodak.  Also, it's unclear who's speaking in the last quotation.  Please clarify.
 * I've rephrased the sentence around the final quote, as suggested, and that specified Bergin worked on Coca-Cola's advertising. The reason that this section is over-quoted, in your opinion, is that I find it somewhat precarious to reword people's opinions, when the subject of the section is so abstract. If I changed "quality products and quality services" to "good" or "great" or "high-grade", none of those exactly match the original, slightly broad intent. "Even specific actions Cosby took, which seem contrary to his image (ie "blow ups"), are a matter of opinion. One widely-covered, scholarly cited book believes in the director's claim, but there's nothing else printed to confirm or deny it as true. The quotation marks in that case help remind the reader that the section is filled with opinion. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

1960s
 * Ref 1: Is there another source for the Cole quote? I ask because although it's reliable, it's kind of a throw-away quote in the source.  I mean, it's such an important statement, and I'd think that it'd be in a source about Cole or his show.  If not, that's fine, and please forgive my pickiness.  I don't think you need to directly quote Mehri, since the NAACP's opinions about racism in the advertising industry in the early 2000s doesn't have anything to do with Cole.
 * I've cleaned up the quote, and added a few more locations. The 1988 one is before the Ad Age reference, but I think most of the things cite each other. None has footnotes to say where they found it.


 * Yes, quotations like this tend to self-perpetuate. I think the source you found is fine, but I find it hard to believe that a significant quote like that wouldn't be in any of Cole's biographies.  Ah well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

* Liking the slogan "We're going to get you," he had agent Norman Brokaw of William Morris Agency inquire about being a spokesperson. Although it's technically grammatically correct (i.e., it's not a dangling modifier), remember that encyclopedic writing is simple. You've lost me if I, as the reader, have to go back and re-read a sentence to get the full meaning. I'd change this to: "He liked their slogan, "We're going to get you", so he had agent Norman Brokaw of William Morris Agency inquire about being their spokesperson."
 * Fixed.


 * Cosby had appeared on The Tonight Show multiple times, but I Spy was still upcoming. "Still upcoming" is unclear.  What year are we talking about?  Don't assume that your readers know about these shows, so identify them, even briefly.  Not everyone is going to know that The Tonight Show was important for comedians' careers, I think you should say: "Cosby had appeared on the late-night program The Tonight Show, something that signified success for comedians like him,  multiple times, but his break-out role in I Spy had not occurred yet." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, no I don't think so; it may go into the realm of common knowledge. I do think, though, that it should be mentioned in order to strengthen your point.  Others might disagree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cosby would later comment that there weren't commercials... Change "weren't" to "were no", please.  I suggest that you go through the entire article and change your contractions.
 * Multiple contractions expanded.


 * Ad Age Encyclopedia cites Cosby and Robert Culp appearing as equals on I Spy as the turning point for advertisers to know such a move was "safe" for them too.[12] I think that this suffers from close paraphrasing, which is probably why you felt the need to quote "safe".  (Actually, I think that moving away from close paraphrasing may solve this issue of using quotes around too many single words too often here.)  How about: "According to Ad Age Encyclopedia, Cosby and Robert Culp appearing as equals on I Spy made it possible for advertisers to show Blacks and whites together in their commercials."
 * Changed. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Debuting in 1968,[13] and running for five years,[14] The Bill Cosby Radio Program, was sponsored by The Coca-Cola Company.[4][13] Ref 14 doesn't state how long the show ran; it just states that it existed and who the producer was, which isn't important here.  I think you could remove it and the show's duration, unless you can find a source that specifically supports it.  I'm also not sure why the radio show is important.  The implication, I think, is that Coca-Cola finally sponsored a program starring a Black person, unlike Cole's experience.  I think that you need to state that clearly.  Does Pendergast say something like this was the first time a major company sponsored a program starring a Black person? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the article saying the one fellow had worked on Discovery for five years, though it was on Cosby's program for five years.
 * Reason for the inclusion of the program: since it was single sponsor, essentially one can say that they paid for the whole series, and thus paid for the entire programming timeslot, which is a form of advertising, in my mind. It's not as explicit as The Jell-O Program Starring Jack Benny, but I think it qualifies. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1970s * Does Pudding Pops have a link?
 * Pudding Pops was a redirect to Popsicle, strangely. I've fixed it to Jell-O, but there's only mention of the product on SNL. Ultimately, this should be added, but I don't know how much there is about the product, as to whether I could create a section or article worth linking to.


 * I think you should introduce that General Mills makes Jell-O earlier.
 * Good point, done.


 * Remove quotes from "fun", and rephrase sentence.
 * How's it now? --  Zanimum (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

* ''Their actual Jell-O gelatin line still lagged in the mid-1980s, with newly appointed Dana Gioia gambling on a recipe for holdable Jell-O called "Jigglers". Cosby was brought on board, to help with the promotional blitz.[21]'' You should identify Gioia more than linking him. Also, does the source state that Gioia specifically used the product to boost sales? Rather, it says that it was one of the recipes they used, and that they used Cosby to connect it with family life. Finally, the last sentence is too close to the source. How about: "Cosby was brought on board as part of the company's advertising campaign."
 * Oops on Gioia, that's something I regularly catch others on in GA reviews.
 * Is that wording better? I dumped "gambling" for merely "introduced". Oxford Companion does prove that sales went up, and the sales were attributed to the campaign. Sadly, it's only limited preview in Google. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

* In 1999, Advertising Age magazine named Jell-O's 1975 "Bill Cosby with kids" commercials the 92nd best ad campaign of all time. How about: "In 1999, Advertising Age magazine named Cosby's 1975 Jell-O commercials, which they called "Bill Cosby with kids", the 92nd best ad campaign of all time."
 * Like, changed.
 * Just to clarify, that was a Facebook type of "Like", not valley girl.

1980s * 1st sentence: "African Americans isn't hyphened; it is when it modifies another noun, such as "African-American comedian".
 * Advertising Age named Cosby the top advertising personality of 1978. This seems like a throw-away line to me.  How about putting it in the final paragraph, and starting the next sentence, "He also appeared..."  "Bottler's" in the next sentence isn't a possessive. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: What does "knock it" mean? Please explain.
 * I've changed it to "mock the brand". Knock it in the source was meaning to metaphorically knock down the Pepsi brand.


 * John Bergin, who directed the series of commercials, personally disliked Cosby, but suggests his presence killed the first Challenge campaign in 1983. I have problems with everything after the second comma.  First off, you mix your tenses; "suggests" is present tense, while every other verb in the sentence is past tense.  It's unclear who did the killing--Cosby or Bergin.  Yes, I know it's obviously Cosby, but the wording needs to make that clear.  Saying that his presence "killed" the campaign is unencyclopedic.  What do you mean by that?  Please clarify.
 * Fixed.


 * At the height of the Cola Wars, marketer Sergio Zyman convinced Coca-Cola executives to have commercials with Cosby praising Coke for being less sweet than Pepsi,[31] aired strictly in the "Pepsi heartland". "To have commercials": Unclear. Do you mean Zyman wanted the execs to produce commercials?  Where and what is the Pepsi heartland?
 * Changed to "to create and air commercials". Pepsi heartland is whatever geographic area was the dominant seller for an extended period. I'm guessing the Carolinas, but I'm not sure, my sources didn't say. (Well, there's one book I had referred to that might say, but it's back at the library.) I've changed it to "in areas where Pepsi sales dominated"... does that work?


 * Beginning to air in October 1984, the company's independently owned bottlers demanded the ads run in their markets as well. Unlike the above, this is definitely a dangling modifier.  I think you should put the phrase about when the ads ran earlier, perhaps in the previous sentence the first time you introduce the series of ads.


 * Coca-Cola was simultaneously testing possible new variations of their soft drink, and deciding that their product would sell best if it used a sweeter formula. How about: "At the same time, Coca-Cola was testing variations of their soft drink, and researching if it would sell better with a sweeter formula."


 * In 2011, Marcio Moreira reflected on his time at McCann Erickson, working on the New Coke launch campaign, and suggested that the idea to hire Cosby wasn't made until other spots were already in the editing room. Who is Moreira?  Please identify.  Did he reflect on working on the New Coke campaign?  Please clarify, and fix the contraction.  If he was, how about: "In 2011, Marcio Moreira reflected on his time at McCann Erickson, especially his work on the New Coke launch campaign..."
 * You still haven't identified Moreira. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How's that read now? --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this paragraph is a little long. How about breaking it up, like after ...the ads run in their markets as well.
 * Broken, and changed the wording. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ...had him set for life, financially. I think this is clearer: "had made him financially secure for the rest of his life."
 * Changed. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In 1986, Cosby was initially only on contract to Jell-O, but added two more accounts by year's end. How about: "In 1986, Cosby's only contract was with Jell-O..." I think you should replace "accounts" with "contracts."
 * Changed, but the second occurrence is now "endorsements". --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The company needed a boost from someone well-liked: they had been found the previous year to be check kitting, pleading guilty to 2000 counts of fraud. The connection between hiring Cosby and their legal troubles needs to be made stronger.  I don't think you need to go into so much detail about their troubles; you can refer to it generally and remove the information about the company's restructuring, since it has little to do with Cosby.  How about: "The company had been accused of fraud the previous year and was going through financial difficulties, so they needed a spokesperson who was well-liked."  And include the references, of course.
 * Changed; I've kept the merger part in a shrunken form, to help indirectly explain why it was a short-lived campaign. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

* What's a "finishing system"?
 * I've changed it to "photo finishing system". It's the process by which the photos were developed; Googling it, I believe it's actually more of a Canadian term. Especially back in the days of 35mm, we'd take the rolls to a photo finisher. I've changed it to "photo processing system", but held back on linking to Photographic processing.


 * Including television and print ads, were joined by point of sale and promotional programs, for an estimated $10 million contract. Another dangling modifier; please fix.
 * Reworded significantly. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Coca-Cola purchased Columbia Pictures in 1982, producing some successful films... And another one.  It's unclear if you mean Coca-Cola produced the films, or Columbia Pictures.
 * Fixed.


 * What parenting book? Please at least mention the title.:*
 * Fixed.


 * Promotions ranged from posters to "tiny promotional spy camera", point of sale standees of Cosby to Porsche cars for a contest. How about: "Promotions included posters, a tiny spy camera, point of sale standees of Cosby, Porshes, and contests."  Why is "standees" red-linked? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, slightly different.

1990s to present * Public appearances for Cosby for Jell-O continued through the 1990s, with the actor on hand for the lighting of the brand's first billboard in New York's Times Square, in 1998. This is clearer, I think: "Cosby continued to be Jell-O's spokesman through the 1990s. He was present for the lighting..." Also, remove the last comma.
 * Changed, but I've modified it to be "to be a Jell-O spokesman", because I don't know if he had a yearly contract by that point (or just one-offs), or whether there were any other spokespeople at that point.


 * I think the entire 1st paragraph of this section could be copy-edited. Instead of going through every sentence here, would you mind if I just did it?
 * By all means, be my guest.
 * Done, tell me what you think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

* The sentence about Bird's Eye seems out of place. Shouldn't it be in the 1980s section?
 * Moved. I thought I had already, but I guess not. It was a relic from before the decade sections.

Criticism: Among the reasons... Another dangling modifier. I think that you could remove the first part of the quote, and just keep the mean part.

Review finished for now. Next, I'll go through the refs and improve their formatting. If you disagree with my BOLD-ness, you can revert them, but tell me why first. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Works cited: Where is the last book cited?
 * Not sure what you mean by this. The physical copy that Google scanned is at University of Michigan. Either way, I've deleted it entirely, as I don't know what exactly was supposedly sourced to this book. --  Zanimum (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant, as you state, that the book didn't appear in any of the citations you included. I would've removed it myself, but I wanted to make sure you didn't need it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that for books, you don't need a date retrieved date. If that's accurate, please go through and correct the format. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through cite book, it does seem to only be needed for things that change; why cite book allows it at all is stupid... books that change aren't books (or have edition numbers). I had always wondered why this field existed for books. --  Zanimum (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons I gave up on the cite templates. I think that citing "by hand" is easier to both use and navigate, and clearer for reader and editor. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that some bot went through and add redmarks to many of your refs. Something happened to your formatting; please go through and fix. Notice that I've gone through and stricken the resolved comments. Please address what's left. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but explain why, please. I'll give you a week (until 6/20) to resolve these final issues. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for disappearing for a few days, I'll try and get the rest covered as soon as possible. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got a bunch done tonight, but I have to log off now and head home. Not all issues are addressed. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yah, there's just a few left after my strike-throughs.  If you deal with them, or give me good reasons for opposing them, I'll go ahead and pass to GA.  I'm glad you came back; to be honest, I was going to fail it and would have if I wasn't so busy yesterday.  Good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's it. --  Zanimum (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for addressing everything; I think that the article's better as a result.  Will go pass now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, for your patience and guidance! --  Zanimum (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)