Talk:Leo Burnett/Archives/2012

Leo Burnett Company

Just a small note, are there any credible references to back up what is said in the Company section on Leo Burnett's Company. I will research and update this section in due course -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a follow up, i have now properly referenced this point. --JackMayhew (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine link

In my sandbox I added a reference/note to Time Magazine (^ "Time Magazine". Times 100 Persons of the Century. 1999. Retrieved March 11, 2012.) I wondered if its a problem if you have to subscribe to the website to access it? Jack Greenaway (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Sources do not have to be online at all and many of the most reliable sources are not—books! Time Magazine is a paper magazine. It is available from a library. Someone seeking verification of the fact it is cited for can do so. We do like to provide links to online versions of paper sources if they are available for convenience, but it is only for convenience. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On a complete tangent, as a matter of long standing convention, on Wikipedia new post go below old, and in lockstep, new threads go below old. So just for future reference, you may confuse people by starting a new thread here or anywhere else at the top if the page rather than at the bottom.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message back and clearing that up. And with you mentioning the Wikipedia post 'convention', I never knew this... I've had a little nose on some talk pages where other wikipedia users have done both. On some pages they have put new posts below old, but then some other pages have new posts on top of old posts. Wikipedia is a confusing world! Jack Greenaway (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It certainly can be confusing. I would say though that it is rather rare to see a new post at the top, but you may have just happened to come across a concentration of this as a statistical anomaly. Note that the "New section" link at the top of talk pages automatically places new threads at the bottom. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Improvement

As a part of a University module, fellow colleagues Jack Mayhew and Jack Greenaway will be editing this page to make it a more reliable source.

This will be our first Wikipedia article, so let us know if there are any problems/issues. For more information on our module, please check out one of our user pages.

Feel free to talk to us via our talk pages, we are friendly and appreciate any feedback!

Bossplw (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to take the work done in my sandbox to the big bad world of Wikipedia. I have updated both the introduction, and the biography, adding key points, and also references. Constructive criticism will be accepted but please take into account that I am new. Cheers. Jack Greenaway (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added two sections 'Advertising Techniques' and 'Creative Process' with reliable resources. I have touched on different techniques but also directly quoted him explaining his methods. Bossplw (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Im sure you have seen but i have updated the Company section of the page (very interesting research actually) if there is anything vital that you think is needed in the section, let me know and ill update. Think we are organising the meetings today for today, tomorrow and Wednesday. See you later -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking goood. Now we need some feedback from other wikipedians on what we have done. What do you think we should do? Jack Greenaway (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad Copy?

Is it just me, or does this whole article just read like ad copy? It feels more like promotional material off a company website than the sort of factual, referenced, balanced account that Wikipedia's supposed to offer. Amusingly appropriate for an advertising guru, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.154.107 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A group consisting of myself and two other people have now updated this article and we are continuing to add to this, i hope it doesn't read so much like an ad copy now. Cheers -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging of Sections

Could the 'Corny Language" sit within either the "Creative Progress" or "Advertising Techniques" as a sub-heading? Or is it best off as separate? Thoughts? Jack Greenaway (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it would sit better possibly with with 'Advertising Techniques', as it is in context of the heading. Bossplw (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made those changes. Jack Greenaway (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Amendments

Great to see people are actually viewing, editing and not deleting anything on the article, even though they are the mostly the unknown (random ip address'). Just thinking if theres any amendments to do? For example, could the references be created more into a 'Notes' section, and then the 'Reference' section contains the list of books, and their information, used in the article? Also, could more images could be uploaded, like another of his most popular works? Jack Greenaway (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments on the idea of putting more pictures up but even though i have asked on the Teahouse, it seems like such a touchy issue regarding copyright laws? Thoughts? -- JackMayhew (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Good sources are the most important part of a decent article. The ones used here at the moment aren't the greatest. You should look in search in google books to see what you can find. Here is one I found for you:

• 1000 CEOs. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 3 August 2009. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-1-4053-5272-7. Retrieved 20 March 2012.

This tool is very useful for creating references from google books too. SmartSE (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you feedback! Quite a few of the references are journals, books and educational texts. Which references could be improved or are considered weak, so that this article can be made better?

Also thank you for the tool, appreciate it. Bossplw (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the websites that use no reference within their own page(s)? I did noticed that two of the links are seen as 'spam' - the 'Famous People' source & the 'Direct Creative' source? Jack Greenaway (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)