Talk:History of public relations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Farrtj (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Lead


 * I think the lead could benefit from a paragraph explaining exactly what PR is, and how it differentiates from advertising and marketing. I note that User:Keithbob has already suggested this.✅
 * So is PR a branch of marketing? Or advertising? Or neither, or both? Farrtj (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is a part of marketing and a distant cousin to advertising, however, doing a quick look at sources, there doesn't appear to be any consensus on referring to it as marketing, or as something completely separate. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, well maybe explain in the lead and then in the body of the article somewhere that there is some debate. Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't know if there is a debate worth including even on the main article about whether it is a part of marketing (people just refer to it differently), but I just added that it is sometimes a part of marketing organizationally, which seems like it would do the trick without going off-topic. CorporateM (Talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand the PR description further with a sentence described the mediums (media) through which PR is disseminated, both now and historically. You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm guessing the likes of pamphlets, press releases, advertising. Farrtj (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is PR a form of communication? Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, advertising usually refers to paid placements, marketing is typically intended for direct prospects and lead generation (webinars, whitepapers, etc.), while PR addresses the general public and the industry at-large. Defining it is a thorny topic and not one we should cover on this sub-page, but I will see what I can do without vearing off-topic. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

✅
 * Ideally, the lead will not have reference citations in it, as it is merely a summary of the article. The new section detailing what PR is can be replicated in the Ancient Origins section. Farrtj (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What is "media outreach"? Does this need some sort of link or explanation? Farrtj (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fathers of the profession

International expansion

Modern era
 * I've noticed you seem to do this a lot. If possible, cite the name of the author of the work in the text, rather than the name of the book. ✅
 * British Petroleum are officially called "BP".✅

References
 * References should not have a retrieval date when no url is given. Either add the url, or remove the retrieval date.
 * References are inconsistently formatted. Sometimes you give a single name as "Egan, John" and sometimes you give a single name as "Jacquie L'Etang".
 * Reference 18 is incorrectly formatted.
 * Picked almost at random, Ref 26 lacks the first name of the author, and an end page for the page range. What I think you may have done is used "pages" in the citation, rather than "page", if it is a single page you are intending to reference, as this problem occurs on numerous occasions.
 * To many formatting errors in the referencing to list individually.
 * ✅ I will keep an eye on this as well to see if I missed any
 * This isn't done. A quick glance shows that Ref 3 lists the name "Barbara Diggs-Brown" whereas the references above and below it use the Diggs-Brown, Barbara" format. Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick glance shows that refs 19, 25 and 26 still give page references with a number and then a dash, ie "36-". Farrtj (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realise this isn't FA standard, and on the whole the references are fine. Farrtj (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll keep an eye out on any others. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just gave all the references a once-over and cleaned up a lot of additional errors. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Other
 * I think this article could do with more than two images, given its size.
 * Just make sure you've italicised everything consistently.
 * There are lots of cases of WP:Weasel words in this article. "Some" scholars, "some" people should strenuously be avoided. Give the names of scholars who have said this.
 * Citation: The major claim "Former journalist Basil Clarke is considered by some to be the founder of public relations in the UK." doesn't have a citation directly following it. Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * Maybe some material on how the growth of PR correlated with the growth of a consumerist society in the Western world? Farrtj (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Prose quality
 * In the instance of "Ron Smith from Buffalo State University", just say "academic Ron Smith". You don't need to list the university he's associated with in the text (besides, he may switch his university affiliation at some point in the future). Farrtj (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * Standardise the use of "U.S." and "US", even if it's within a quote. Farrtj (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * Italicise Common Sense and The American Crisis, and put publication dates in the text, ie Common Sense (1776) ✅
 * Instead of repeating public relations throughout the article, just use "PR" after the first instance. Farrtj (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've fully utilised all the available sources? This article seems a little bare for a history of an entire social science. Look at the size of the GA listed History of KFC page for instance. And I can't allow this to pass until the formatting has been sorted out. I will give you a week or so to make any changes you may wish to make. Farrtj (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For this "Some scholars believe that the first appearance of the term "public relations" was in the 1897 Year Book of Railway Literature" - the source literally says "some scholars". Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't trust that source. The OED for example, who I consider to be pretty definitive on these matters, claims that the first use of "public relations" in the modern sense was in 1898, not 1897. Farrtj (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just found a stronger source (there are plenty of sources on this), but I note that some specify that it was the first time the term appeared in print, while others are credited for bringing the term into common use. CorporateM (Talk) 12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
 * I feel that the article could better articulate the criticism of PR (which has been extensive). For example, in the article, Bernays is described as the "father of PR" and a "pioneer", yet a Google Books search finds two different books on the first results page alone that describes PR as "spin". There doesn't seem to be enough on the critical opinion of PR. which is otherwise described as "spin" or "propaganda". Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's possible we are reaching an empasse here, because you keep wanting to add material that in my opinion belongs on other articles on public relations. This article is only about its history, not its definition, ethics, theory or other debates. And the article does properly include a long history of misleading communications, such as the misleading descriptions of Virginia to promote colonization, "pioneer" Lee bieng called a "poisoner of public opinion", manipulative techniques to promote circuses, and a slew of recent PR snaffus. We do have other articles on astroturfing, spin, and on PR in general that I also work on from time-to-time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough. But on the other hand, have you considered adding an example of PR being used for good? Farrtj (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage
 * This article is very America-centric. I realise that that's where modern PR originated, but I feel as if maybe the UK coverage could be expanded, and maybe some information about the growth of PR in Europe and Asia? 14:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible. I noticed this problem while authoring it. Most textbooks seem to suggest its history is most strongly rooted in the USA, but I suspect in part that is the bias of US sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, I unearthed this quote from Noam Chomsky (who's quite the expert on PR himself) and he says "the PR industry developed “in the freest countries in the world—the U.K. and U.S.”". I know you mention a little bit about the UK founder of PR, but we have nothing about the growth of PR companies in the UK, or how the field developed there after its foundation. Farrtj (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just some brief digging has found this on international PR: Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently Jacquie L'Etang has written a complete history of PR in the UK. Farrtj (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Hi Farrtj. I think this would be a good point to leave the article on-hold for a little while, while I do more research and order a few books, etc. A few things on my to do list:


 * US centricity: Currently all the global stuff is lumped into "International Expansion". Some degree of US centricity seems appropriate in this case, but I will see if I can find some more non-US sources and maybe break up this section so the entire article has more of an international feel.


 * NPOV: I do notice we could use an explanation of Barnum's "manipulative tactics" and I will double-check Bernays once more to see if there is negative stuff I missed. There are plenty of examples of PR that are both positive and negative (or up to interpretation) throughout the article, so I am not attached to creating a slant in either direction that does not flow naturally from the source material. But I will double-check a few things.


 * Broad coverage: I was trying to keep things concise and it's possible I went overboard. Certainly there are enough sources (entire books from Cutlip just on specific time periods) to make the article as long as needed, but I would prefer to keep the article a short, readable length that offers a good summary. Still, I will poke around with an eye towards any "major aspects" that are missing.

If there's anything that needs to be addressed from criteria #1 and #2, I can fix those right away, while I wait for a couple books to come in the mail. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay perfect. Take as long as it takes. As a Wikipedian, I'm somewhat of an inclusionist, reasoning that any excess information in a given article can normally be spun off onto a separate page, so I wouldn't worry about that too much :) It's really good to see someone giving advertising/marketing based pages some attention, as they sorely needed that. Farrtj (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes! Part of the reason I improve these articles (besides having a PR background) is we do not have many good editors with an interest or knowledge of marketing topics and the community's frustration with unethical participation on Wikipedia tends to lead to a systematic bias against it. Marketers are obsessed with short-form content, so Wikipedia's long-form is counter-intuitive, but admittedly I do have an inclusionist bias where I have a COI.


 * Of course, the disadvantage of writing articles about topics within the field I operate is the awkwardness when I met two employees from Ogilvy at a conference in Nashville and I blurted out that I had just cut their article in half. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I ordered 3 books, but they will take 10-14 days to arrive. One of them titled "Pr!: A Social History of Spin" was mentioned in other books on PR history and may provide the angle you're looking for. The Google Books preview only shows me a few pages and I didn't order it before because - based on the title - it sounds biased. But seeing it cited in other books makes me think it is significant. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Farrtj (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have both books now, which just leaves about 600 pages of reading between me and the continuation of the GA review. I do notice that a lot of material could be added that I think is needed to meet the GA standard, much of which is along the lines of spin and propaganda. It may take a while for me to get through both books though. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid this has taken far more than the standard 7 days, and needs a lot more work. I have no choice but to close the review. You can renominate it at a later date. Keep up the good work! Farrtj (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It does need a lot of work before it will be ready for re-nomination. I appreciate your patience. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)