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&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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&#124; 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 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 Verifiability and 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)

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:46, 14 November 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)

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&#124; talk to me 18:57, 17 November 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)