Wikipedia:Peer review/Julio and Marisol/archive1

Julio and Marisol


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to submit this to WP:GAN and want to get it in as good shape as possible before I do that.

Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "The focus of the campaign" --> "Its focus." We already know we're discussing the campaign in the previous sentence.
 * Done
 * "The series has been compared to a steamy soap opera.[3]" There is only one citation citing this sentence, so it needs attribution.
 * Done
 * In prose, there are names of works not properly italicized. For example, "Adweek" and "The New York Times"
 * Done
 * The article suffers from baffling organization choices
 * There are details only in the lead and not in the body, such as its presentation as comic books and shirt merchandise, the campaign's catchphrase, starting year, and the fact that it was aimed at hispanics. Generally, the lead is suppose to summarize what is in the body of the article, not introduce new details not in any other section.
 * If I'm to be honest, the "Cultural significance" and "target demographic" sections are too short on their own and should be merged with the "Production history" section into a general history section of the campaign. Some details that (as of writing this) are only in the leads could be combined with the history section as well.
 * Sections combined, leads work pending.
 * "It was primarily targeted at young Hispanics, who the New York City Health Department felt were not receptive to existing outreach efforts.[2][3]" None of the target demographic section discuss how the NY department felt people with AIDS were reacting, and its contradictory to the lead. It states "Early cases were observed in homosexual men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, and Haitians,[13]" and the section ends with saying it was targeted by Hispanics in general, not "young Hispanics" as specified only in the lead.
 * Why doesn't the storyline come first before the history and target demographic of the campaign, like how it is in film articles?
 * Done
 * I'm not seeing why every episode in the "story line" section needs to have its own subsection, given that they each last one short paragraph. I'd think it be easier and more engaging to read if episodes were consolidated into multiple paragraphs.
 * Done
 * Though there is varied sentence length in the storylines, there are too many short sentences and they feel like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE set of events instead of a cohesive SparkNotes-like summary of the entire plot. I know these are a set of episodes, but I don't think specifying all of the little plot points that happened in every episode is necessary.
 * "This new policy left no space for the Julio and Marisol spots" How? I assuming the customers took so much space there wasn't enough for a bigger story ad like those in Julio and Marisol, but this is not obvious and clarification is still needed.
 * Done
 * "it was felt that this would be inappropriate for the campaign." Again, how?
 * Done
 * I know GAN doesn't consider cite formatting that much apart from not making them bare URLs, but I still wanted to give this advice. You cannot present the names of works and publishers as URLS. For example :"www.adweek.com," "www.nlm.nih.gov," "aep.lib.rochester.edu."
 * Done
 * How is ref 10 a reliable source? Looks self-published
 * Done

I'm hoping this article does become a GA, but this needs some organization and prose work. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review, it's much appreciated. All good points, I'll work through them when I get a chance.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)