Talk:Joe Camel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a review posted some time today or tomorrow. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , pretty good overall, but a few problems that need to be addressed before this can be considered a GA. The first is whether this article covers every major aspect of the Joe Camel character. After reading it, I know a lot about the controversy surrounding it, but I still don't know too much about Camel's marketing, which was the whole point of this character. The second is the use of primary sources. There's usually some leeway with this at GA, but it's enough of an issue here that it starts to create original research and POV issues. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Well-written

Lead:
 * Is this character actually called "Old Joe"? I get the impression that the previous mascot was called Old Joe, not this one.
 * The JAMA abstrat and WaPo article  both refer to the contemporary Joe Camel cartoon as "Old Joe". Kind of contrary, NYT said that the inspiration behind Joe Camel was "Old Joe", the camel that appears on the cigarette packs.  My impression is that Old Joe was always the name of the original camel on the cigarette packs, and some sources by point of relation, would call the new 80s artwork Old Joe as well.  TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Description:
 * Some critics claimed Joe's nose was intentionally drawn in a phallic fashion, as to suggest that smoking was a verile pursuit – I'm not saying that this can't be included in the article at all, but it feels undue to list it among his basic traits. I suggest moving it to the bottom of this section. Also, avoid "claimed", as it implicitly casts doubt.
 * ✅ essentially appearing as a muscular humanoid – "essentially" can be lost here. Either it does or it doesn't.
 * ✅ Although television advertisements for cigarettes were outlawed in the United States – Was this before or after Joe Camel was created?
 * ✅ would often depict – "often depicted" is more concise.
 * ✅ RJR also ran promotions – RJR is defined in the lead and again in the next section. This would be a better place to define it in the body. For clarity, maybe "parent company R. J. Reynolds (RJR) also ran promotions"

History:
 * ✅ Why is the original camel drawing's name given the second time it is mentioned? Would it make more sense to say "featuring a plain camel drawing, known as 'Old Joe', on the package"
 * ✅ However, the American version – "However" can be removed without changing the meaning.
 * Salisbury claimed that RJR would reject – Avoid "claimed". Also, "rejected" is more concise.
 * ✅ However, much of Mangini's prosecution was based on the review of RJR internal documents to assess company intent rather than reviewing market data. – The wording here casts doubt on her methodology rather than simply describing it.
 * claiming only the federal government – It doesn't cast doubt the same way as the others, but "claiming" still isn't quite the right word here.
 * ✅ Was Joe Chemo created by Adbusters or by Scott Plous? The article should state this clearly.
 * Plous presented the concept to Adbusters, who made it a reality. Fixed. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Legacy: No issues.


 * Verifiable with no original research
 * The sources appear generally reliable, but the article relies overwhelmingly on primary sources. Coverage from 1998 to today is far more valuable, as it allows for better analysis and puts the information in context. I searched for recent Joe Camel articles on Google Scholar, and there are a bunch of good sources if you're interested in expanding the article.
 * In line with that, it's best to avoid using sources to write about themselves. Practically the entire section about the FTC complaint is cited to the FTC complaint itself. It would be preferable to have sources that report on it and analyze it rather than having us try to analyze them directly. Looking for more secondary sources would greatly benefit the article. The best option is to find books and scholarly articles that analyze the events in retrospect. Failing that, it's still better to cite news articles that describe the events rather than citing the research or the FTC release directly.
 * ✅ This is just a cosmetic thing and doesn't really matter, but generally, if multiple sentences in a row are supported by the same source, then you can just have a single citation at the end of the last sentence.

Spot checks:
 * Elliott (1991) – Good. This source also provides a really good description of the approach to marketing as well as further description of Joe Camel's design. That's the sort of thing that should be included in the article.
 * ✅ Dubin (1996) – Good except it doesn't support old action and adventure films. It only supports action films, and that he specifically geared it to those of the 1940s might also be relevant.
 * Warren (1994) – Good.

There are a few areas where this article doesn't cover everything that it probably should.
 * Broad in its coverage


 * Were there any notable events or approaches involving the Joe Camel advertising campaign? The history section does a good job covering the controversy around the character, but it doesn't cover much about the advertising itself. It seems to jump from his creation to his Americanization to the studies to the FTC. How was he used in between these events?
 * The article should probably have more information about his design and about how that fed into its marketing. It seems this aspect is neglected in favor of the controversy. The sources that I looked at definitely provide some information about this.
 * What were some of the other long term effects of Joe Camel's legacy and the legal issues that surrounded the character? Did his existence lead to new regulations? Did it change Camel's marketing strategy or the tobacco industry more broadly?
 * ✅ This probably isn't essential, but a little more background about Camel's marketing leading up to the creation of Joe Camel might be helpful for context. The article briefly mentions a "plain camel" adorning the original release in 1913, but it would be good to have some (very brief) information about the marketing between 1913 and 1974.


 * Neutral
 * This is mentioned above, but be careful about how the arguments are presented so as not to suggest that one side was correct or incorrect. My impression of the article is that it slightly favors critics of the study, even if it's not done intentionally.
 * exposing children to the dangers of smoking – Even if this was the FTC's stated position, it should be clear that this is what the FTC is alleging. Right now it reads like the article is taking a position on "the dangers of smoking".
 * I reworded to "exposing children to smoking" which is objective TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack Calfee's analysis appears to have been published through the American Enterprise Institute, which is a partisan think tank. Any use of this source should be scrutinized, and it should be attributed to Calfee and/or the AEI. Claims made by this source should not be accepted at face value.
 * Out of an abundance of caution, I removed the source from the article. TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No recent disputes.
 * Stable

Both images have a valid non-free use rationale, though it wouldn't hurt to flesh out the details at File:JoeCamel.jpg
 * Illustrated
 * Improved the rationale. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed review. This will take some work. I will work on this during this week/weekend and will ping you when complete. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , checking in to see where we're at since we've reached the recommended seven days for an article hold. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have addressed many of the concerns, but the remaining "heavy lifting" requires analysis of more sources. I took a look at the link of sources you gave but the overwhelming majority are behind paywalls. I did find two that I think will help address your concerns. Can I have one more week to implement? Because they are rather long. TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's no rush. I just wanted to know what the plan was at this point. You probably have access to the Wikipedia Library, which grants access to a lot of academic sources and databases. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, I was aware of the library but didn't know it was so easy to access, browse, and download articles! I will certainly look more closely at this this week! Thank you TarkusAB talk / contrib 00:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Will work on this tonight. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I see you made some additions. Is it ready for another look, or did you want to add more in the next few days? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A little more time please! I will finish this weekend! TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm ready for you to take another look. I think I addressed all the points. One thing I think I don't know what to do with is the use of the word "claimed" in some cases. To your point, I don't want the article to take sides, and since there have been a lot of lies on both sides of the aisle, I use the word "claimed" so the reader can draw their own conclusions. TarkusAB talk / contrib 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Revised article review
I've looked over the article again.


 * ✅ The article does need to comply with MOS:WTW before it can pass, including MOS:CLAIM in particular. "Said" can pretty much always substitute "claimed", and "argued" sometimes work as well.
 * ✅ The character creation section has some statements from Salisbury about the marketing to children, but they feel out of place because that aspect hasn't been explored yet. I suggest moving them down lower in the article, maybe to the JAMA studies section.
 * ✅ Joe expressive eyerbrows – Is this a typo?
 * ✅ The Mangini lawsuit section is only one paragraph. It might be better to merge it with the JAMA studies section per MOS:PARA.
 * ✅ Do any sources state on what grounds Mangini brought the lawsuit? Was she representing anyone, or was it just as a concerned citizen?
 * ✅ but in 1994 decided not to act after three of five commissioners voted not to act – This uses "not to act" twice in a row.
 * ✅ briefly drove a spike of interest – "increased interest" is simpler.
 * ✅ It might be worth combining the short paragraphs in the legacy section.

Once these are addressed, that should be it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I did the things you listed off. Let me know if there are any other issues with the article, or parts that need expansion. TarkusAB talk / contrib 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)