Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution (Dove)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:06, 13 December 2008.

Evolution (Dove)

 * Nominator(s): GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 

Another article in the style of noitulovE, Evolution won the Cannes Lions Film Grand Prix the year after the Guinness piece, and went on to win an unprecedented second Grand Prix in another category. There is less discussion on the "behind the scenes" elements to the commercial available than on noitulovE, but I've done what I feel to be a fairly good job at presenting the various aspects of the ad's progress through conception, production, and release. There are bound to be areas that could use a little work, so please let me know where to focus my attention. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3CBIOZNpfc does this uploader have the right to upload it? Same for the other YouTube videos?
 * Nothing in that particular video that can't be referenced elsewhere, so switched to text refs. However, with regards to the later YouTube videos, they are the only *online* versions of the commercials in question. Being able to see the differences between the regional versions is the purpose of using the reference in the first place. If you prefer, I can simply reel off the production details, but no-one without access to the reels will be able to confirm that they even exist, let alone that they differ in any way (credits are the same for virtually all of the regional versions of the ad).
 * The problem is that we shouldn't be linking to copyright violations, either in references or in external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, switched to subscribe-only U.S. version, and the CFRB.pl version for Southeast Asia. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, and missed the Ruddy Hell!... link at the bottom. Removed, since the BBC wesite only provides access to the latest season, which has a different introduction sequence. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc2Ity4uV_Y has been removed.
 * Switched to Singapore version.


 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://ihaveanidea.org/articles/index.php?/archives/381-The-Evolution-of-Evolution.html
 * It's an interview with the creative director and art director for the advertisement. Given that it's directly quoting the primary source (the people themselves), I'm not sure reliability is an issue.
 * The problem is that although its an interview, how do we know that the interview was transcribed/published without bias/errors? Interviews in mainstream media rely on the fact that the publisher has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so we need to make sure that all sites have that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how to fix this one. The information in the interview can't be cited to anywhere else. The interviewer is a former copywriter (together with director, half a creative team) at the Doug Agency, the lead editor of the site is a former art director at Ogilvy & Mather, and all other members of staff have similar backgrounds in the industry. They know what they're talking about, but I can't really list the entire staff's credentials within a ref tag. :/ GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Best I can find to show the site's authority is that its annual industry event is reported on by Reuters, and that the site itself is partnered with some of the largest agencies and organisations around (Corbis, DDB Worldwide, ADC, etc.) Anything else I can do? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

source
 * http://www.mokslai.lt/referatai/referatas/dove-prekes-zenklas.html
 * Switched to the ref that Mokslai itself used for the point (Creativity)


 * http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2338/slob-evolution-from-blinkprods
 * The point it was referencing wasn't that important. Removed.


 * Note that the link checker is showing http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602774 as a deadlink, but it's working fine.
 * http://ny.beam.tv/beamreels/reel_player.php?x=1&CdRryqFbSH&xip=62d70349 deadlinks
 * That link doesn't appear in the article. If you're referring to http://www.beam.tv/beamreels/reel_player.php?CdRryqFbSH, that link works fine.
 * I pulled the link from the article somewhere. May have been removed in the edits, not sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.blinkprods.com/production/digital/newsletter/Nov07.html requires log in
 * Switched to Internet Archive version of the page.


 * Current ref 37 is lacking a publisher
 * Miscapitalised in template, fixed.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta muchly. Let me know if there are any other issues :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Just FWI, but there's a general consensus (or it seems) to delink dates.
 * It won a number of the most prestigious awards in the advertising industry - This needs a reference, as it's not mentioned in the article.
 * The awards are mentioned in the reception section. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that section doesn't say the awards are "prestigious". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dropped the three words in the lede. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolution has also spawned numerous unofficial copycat versions, including a title sequence to a BBC sketch show and the short parody Slob Evolution, which has gone on to itself be nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award. - Is "copycat" the most encyclopedic word choice?
 * Switched copycat for alternate


 * The film opens with a "pretty, but ordinary girl" (Stephanie Betts)[2] entering and sitting down in a studio. - Do we really need to know her name? Probably not.
 * I was asked in noitulovE's FAC to provide names for the actors involved. Consider the piece a short film - acting credits on any film would be an absolute requirement, so why not include the information if it's available?


 * Two harsh lights are switched on and the first bars of The Flashbulb's "Passage D", a drum and bass piece with piano accompaniment, are heard. - What is a "harsh light"?
 * A light leaving no shadows on the face, I'll cite it to the making of.


 * The final image is transferred to a billboard advertisement for the fictional Fasel (an anagram of the word "False") brand of foundation makeup and the piece fades to the statement, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." - Needs a source.
 * The parenthetical comment was recently added by another user, removed.

The above stuff is from the lead and some of the first section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review
 * Image:Dovelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible, in the "source" field. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".


 * Image:Evolution - Passage D.ogg - This fair use image requires a specific "purpose of use".


 * Image:Slobelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".


 * Image:Ruddy Hell! title card.jpg - This fair use image requires a specific "purpose of use".

This dispatch on non-free images has some hints on writing "purpose of use" statements at the bottom. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Purpose subsections to each of the images GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "purpose" statements need to be more specific. I rewrote the first one as a sample, but the best way to understand what makes a good purpose statement is to read the section on purpose-writing in the dispatch I linked to above. Note that "a well-written rationale will be explicit and articulate an actual purpose (not just a function, as is too often the case)". The dispatch does an excellent job of explaining the difference between these and why both are necessary. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS no longer recommends date linking. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Status? Is the nominator still responding?  No feedback on the issues above, and no article edits since November 29.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, but I'm currently unable to dedicate any real time to article editing at the moment. I'll do my best to address the points at a later date and reapply, but feel free to shut the discussion down for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.