Talk:History of public relations/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this awesome article. However, first I'll work on this review first, then I'll do this article's review. Sit tight ;P Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, I've taken a good look at the old GA review and the peer review, and there doesn't seem to be any comments that I could check off like I did with this review. I guess I'll move straight on with the review. (I do my review with one "main" review with a table, then I do a separate in-depth prose and source review. :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 12:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It looks good after reading through the article. However, I will do a more in-depth review in the Prose Review section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead, layout, and MOS are all followed from a first glance.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything is referenced that is in the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In line citations follow guidelines, and sources are AOK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Again, everything is referenced, therefore there is no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are all covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article doesn't veer off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It looks neutral from a first look.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars/sockpuppetry.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged, and rationales are provided.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant, and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is now on hold, awaiting changes. Article comments have been addressed. Pass. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Hey CorporateM, sorry about delaying the review. School really got me busy .-.

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Lead

Length is good and no grammar errors.

Ancient origins

• "Although the term "public relations" was not yet developed, academics like James E. Grunig and Scott Cutlip have identified early forms of public influence and communications management in ancient civilizations.

Change have to had.

 Done I just took it out. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Scott Cutlip said historic events have been defined as PR retrospectively, "a decision with which many may quarrel."

Same error, change have to had.

 Not done Still current (present tense) there actually. CorporateM (Talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Antecedents

• Change title from Antecededants to Antecedents. See Google search and Merriam-Webster

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Origins as a profession

• "In 1906 Lee helped facilitate some of the first positive media coverage the Pennsylvania Railroad had after inviting press to the scene of a railroad accident despite objections from executives."

Add comma after 1906.

 Done I did some copyediting too. 00:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "At the time, secrecy about corporate operations was common practice and for centuries before the progressive era the public didn't pry into business operations."

Add comma after era.

 Done Actually I just trimmed the second half of that sentence - it was very editorialized and unecessary. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1913 and 1914 the mining union was blaming the Ludlow Massacre, where on-strike miners and their families were killed by state militia, on the Rockefeller family and their coal mining operation, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company."

Add comma after 1914.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "He wrote the first text-book on PR..."

text-book or textbook?

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wartime propaganda

• No prose mistakes/grammar/spelling mistakes.

It seems to me that the first sentence of this paragraph and the last sentence cannot both be true. I understand that treating church teachings on par with propaganda is both factually accurate and starkly controversial. Nevertheless, the first sentence overstates... A good test for this? Can one say that Napoleon did not use propaganda on a wide scale to run his Grand Army? Wartime propaganda definitely goes back much further than WWI. Who doesn't know the story of the Gordian Knot? Who doubts that this was a propaganda effort on Alexander's part?

Professional development

• "However, it failed to obtain complete recognition as a profession due in part due to a history of deceit."

Delete the second "due" after the word part.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Social and digital

• No prose mistakes/grammar/spelling mistakes.

Source Review

• Ref 56 is dead.

Used this to check.

• The link provided for citation 56 seems to work for me. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note that ref 55, 96, and 95, are all downloadable/accessable via pdf/webpage, even though Checklinks says they are "errored."