Talk:Meatballs (advertisement)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned for initial thoughts/feedback. :) Colin M (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments (7/01)

This was an entertaining and educational read! Some initial comments below, organized by section (plus a grab bag at the end). Feel free to intersperse replies inline if you find that easier. Also feel free of course to push back if you disagree with me on the substance of any of these comments, or if you think they're outside the scope of the WP:GACR. The main area I still need to think about is the "Broad coverage" criterion - i.e. whether there are any major aspects of the topic that are un/under-explored.

Intro

The ad highlights... inconsistent tense with lead sentence. Done
Upon its release, the ad aired in 22 states, particularly border states like California and Arizona. It's not really clear what the "particularly" is meant to signify here. That it aired especially frequently in those states? Or had an especially large effect there? Also, the "Upon its release" portion could probably be cut.
- In this case, "particularly" referred to the fact that the ad was aired the most in those two states; I've changed the wording, so Done

Background

The commercial itself was filmed by VTTV. This is the first mention of VTTV. What is it? Done (Added Houston-based production company)

Synopsis

A newscaster announces that an executive order "say(s) that English is no longer America’s national language". I believe square brackets are preferred for indicating adjustments to a direct quote. See MOS:PMC. Done
Before the recorded menu reaches the option for English, the choking man has fallen, "lifeless", to his kitchen floor. Where does the "lifeless" quote come from? Doesn't seem to be in the CBS source. Done — I neglected to include the citation for it (it was from Slate)
At the end of the ad, the viewer sees the man’s dog standing on his stomach, "licking the food off his face". Don't see any reason this needs to be a direct quote. Done
Slate proposed that another moral of the ad might be that "a foreign-food-loving social deviant got what was coming to him". This sounds like a facetious comment rather than a serious analysis. Done — moved to critical reception
Does the "Analysis" section logically belong as a subsection under "Synopsis"? Done — split it into its own section

Reception

The deputy vice chair for the National Council of La Raza, Lisa Navarrette, remarked Many readers won't know what the National Council of La Raza is. Worth including a short descriptor, e.g. "The deputy vice chair for the Latino advocacy organization National Council of La Raza..." Done
The "critical" subsection is oddly named, because the previous "Political" subsection also consists entirely of critical opinions. Comment — The Political section includes comments from political figures (an activist, a state party chair, a strategist — not professional critics or writers), while the Critical section is comments from professional advertising critics who write for publications; I think the distinction justifies the separate sections, but I’m open for discussion!
- Ah, that makes sense. I wonder if there's another section heading that could better communicate that to readers. (One unfortunate aspect of the term critical is that it has a second meaning of 'negative'/'finding fault', which also coincidentally applies to the views in this section.) But I'm struggling to think of a better heading at the moment. "Critical analysis"? "Advertising critics"? Colin M (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might have found a new way to label the headings: I switched "Political" to "Political figures", "Critical" to "Critics", and "Accuracy" to "Fact checkers". The headings might be a little unconventional, but I think they do a better job of conveying the contents of each — what do you think? —Historical-idealist (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good idea - I think that's definitely clearer. Though perhaps it could be clarified further in the first sentence of the "Critics" section, to make it clear that it's specifically talking about professional advertising critics? Colin M (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Good idea, and done[reply]

Effectiveness

The Globe and Mail described the Meatballs ad as "the only time Mr. Buchanan [... ] manage(d) to get any attention", owing to the "considerable offense (which) was taken" to the spot. This doesn't really say much about the effectiveness of the ad (well, except for its effectiveness on this specific Globe writer). Comment Good point — what I was trying to get at was that the Buchanan campaign got very little media coverage, and as that quote illustrates, the ad was one of the few times that Buchanan made it into the news during the 2000 election. If you feel strongly about it, I can remove it — or, since I removed the “Effectiveness” heading, is it OK now?
- Yup, much clearer, and better integrated with the rest of the text. Colin M (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the end of the campaign, following the release of Meatballs and a string of other campaign ads, Buchanan was polling at approximately one percent among voters, far behind fellow Ralph Nader, a fellow third-party candidate who had spent far less money on political advertising. This is useful contextual information, but it doesn't tell us directly about the effectiveness of the ad - i.e. it's not clear that Buchanan was polling poorly because of this ad, rather than a variety of other possible factors. Are there any RS that have any kind of direct analysis or even speculation on the effectiveness of the ad on the general public? Comment I’m not aware of any such analyses; I’ll get rid of the Effectiveness heading and fold it all into a general Aftermath heading
- On further reflection, I think this might actually be misleading (at least without further context). The CBS "Buchanan Serves Up A Meatball" article, published the day after the debut of the commercial, mentions that Buchanan is polling at 1% in a recent poll. The impression that I got from this sentence is that his polling numbers slipped after the release of Meatballs and the other campaign ads. Colin M (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. What I was trying to convey is that the ad didn’t get Buchanan’s numbers to rise. How’s this? "Prior to the release of the spot, Buchanan was polling at around one percent in most polls; by the end of the campaign, following the release of Meatballs and a string of other campaign ads, Buchanan was continuing to poll at one percent, far behind fellow Ralph Nader, a fellow third-party candidate who had spent far less money on political advertising." (I italicized the new bit.) —Historical-idealist (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds good. Colin M (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think some visual reference for the subject is necessary, even if it has to be WP:NFC. Perhaps a frame from the commercial in the "Synopsis" section? Done — I placed it in the infobox, though I can move it if you think Synopsis would be more appropriate
- Wow, that screen grab is amazing. The year 2000, fisheye lenses, and ghastly color grading, name a more iconic combo... Colin M (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha! Thank you — I thought it rather nicely epitomized it all too. —Historical-idealist (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of direct quoting throughout the article. Sometimes it's necessary to capture the exact wording someone used to describe something (e.g. the fact that Art Torres used the word "pathetic" to describe the ad), but in most cases a paraphrase is cleaner and makes for a smoother reading experience. Done (I think)
(This is explicitly not required as part of WP:GACR, so just consider it a friendly suggestion.) None of the citations have dates specified. This is pretty helpful information, especially for a recent history topic like this. In particular, it allows the reader to determine, at a glance, whether the source that's being cited is contemporaneous or retrospective. Done

Colin M (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! I’ve made the majority of the changes you marked (in only a couple of instances, I left responses explaining my rationale), and I’ll try to get the last few finished momentarily. Stay tuned, and thanks again! —Historical-idealist (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One further thought, circling back to the "broad coverage" criterion: I think the article could stand to give a little more context on the "culture war" angle. My understanding is that this ad is situated in a larger debate (which has since faded from relevance) around English as the national/official language of the US, and the acceptability of accommodating residents who speak other languages. I think it's particularly important to mention Executive Order 13166, which this ad seems to be a direct reaction to (this is mentioned, for example, in this brief NYT notice about the ad). Colin M (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! — In the Background section, I added an entire paragraph that briefly chronicles Buchanan’s position on immigration and the English language during his 2000 campaign, as well as describing that Executive Order. I also mention it briefly in Analysis. Thank you so much for that article — it was quite helpful, and somehow I hadn’t seen it before. —Historical-idealist (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

Thanks for the quick updates! The article is looking great. Just a few more comments (though only the first two are real GACR issues - the others are just optional suggestions/opinions):

AFAICT neither of the sources cited for the second sentence of the intro mention that the man in the ad is white. Obviously it's not really a verifiability issue, since we can see it for ourselves, but it seems like a potential issue of WP:NPOV/due weight for us to bring attention to it if it's not mentioned in RS as a salient piece of info.
- Though I just came across this source which does describe the man's race, so perhaps it could be used as a source. (Though I haven't carefully scrutinized it for reliability, and there may be other sources that also mention the man's race.) Colin M (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Done — that's a good source, and I spotted only one minor error (they label the ad as being from 1992, not 2000). It appears a thoroughly-researched work, so I added it in. Thank you![reply]
re multiple fact-checkers also questioned its accuracy and the "Fact checkers" section: I'm wondering if this is somewhat misleading. Generally "fact-checker" refers to a particular dedicated role within a journalistic publication or publishing house. The CBS source does use the heading "Fact Check" in reference to its assessment around the ad's portrayal of Bush and Gore's views as "a stretch", so that's fine. But I don't think it's accurate to call Ron Faucheux a "fact-checker". He's just an author who disputed the accuracy of the ad. Done — I reworded it as Commentators
- Just one last thing: can we also come up with a replacement for the "Fact checkers" heading? I think the previous "Accuracy" heading would be ok (even if it lacks parallelism with the other headings in the section). Or maybe the paragraph could even just be moved into the "Analysis" section? Or open to any other ideas. Colin M (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done — I moved it to the Analysis section (and since that section was a little skimpy to start with, this helps flesh it out) —Historical-idealist (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and his opposition to current immigration policies it's clear what this means, but this use of "current" still feels a little awkward. Maybe "his opposition to the immigration policies at the time"? "then-current immigration policies"? The Clinton administration's immigration policies? (I'm not confident any of these options are actually better, just putting it out there.) Done — I reworded it as Immigration policies of the time
The ad has been unfavorably recognized in retrospective lists from The American Prospect and Salon. This is sort of a personal bugbear, but I tend to think these sorts of retrospective appraisals are usually not sufficiently noteworthy to mention in the intro, especially when they're in the form of listicles - unless it's some extraordinary case where people's views of the subject radically shifted in later years (e.g. a movie that was a flop but became a cult classic years later). I would limit it in the body, but it's your call. Done — I shortened the allusion to the lists in the intro to just “has been unfavorably recognized in retrospect.” I can get rid of the sentence altogether, if you think that would be better!
A review for Slate, published upon the ad's release, gave the commercial a letter grade of "D",... Perhaps it would be useful context to mention that this was part of a regularly appearing "Ad Report Card" feature. (Apparently they're still running it today!) Done — great idea, and I just added it in!

Colin M (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I just made all the changes you suggested — thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate the time you've spent on the GA review, and if there are any other changes you think should be made, I'm more than happy to oblige! —Historical-idealist (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I've gotten everything completed on the article! I added a bit more to the Background too, some info on his running-mate's comparable rhetoric on immigration (since the ad is for the Buchanan-Foster ticket, I thought it would be a good idea to have a bit of info on Foster too!).
  - I just had one more quick question. Since the ad was so widely regarded as a sign of xenophobia and opposition to illegal (or all) immigration, I was wondering whether it might be relevant, in the Aftermath section, to note that the year after the ad aired, when Buchanan's running-mate ran for Congress, she was endorsed by The American Patrol, an anti-immigrant Hate Group (according to the SPLC)… However, I'm afraid that it might be a little too unrelated to include. What do you think? Thank you again! —Historical-idealist (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say it should be included only if there are RS that explicitly connect that fact with the ad, otherwise it could be a WP:SYNTH issue. (Also, I think we should generally be very cautious about using "X endorsed Y" in a way that could suggest to readers that Y mutually supports the beliefs of X, in the absence of Y explicitly embracing X or their endorsement. An extreme example of how this could go wrong would be, e.g. Richard Spencer's (possibly bad faith) endorsement of Joe Biden.) Colin M (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That’s a good point — in that case, I’ll leave out the addition. The candidate herself actually bragged about the endorsement on her website, so I think from that angle it would be (maaaybe) OK, but I fear it would fall into WP:SYNTH. —Historical-idealist (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I said the last comment would be the last one, but I just noticed one more thing while doing a final pass. This sentence from the intro: The commercial drew criticism from several political figures and media outlets for its message, which some considered racist and xenophobic. isn't actually verified by the source it cites. AFAICT the CBS source doesn't talk about criticism received by the ad (except insofar as the piece is itself mildly critical, though it doesn't go as far as imputing racism or xenophobia). I would suggest citing the LA Times article instead (since it summarises criticism from multiple other figures), and the Ad Age article, since it specifically includes a charge of racism. (Maybe there are even better sources that could be used, but I think those two would at least be an improvement over the CBS source.) Colin M (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Good catch. Thank you! —Historical-idealist (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good! At this point I'm confident this article meets the GA criteria. Thanks for being so patient, responsive, and open to suggestions. It's been a real pleasure reviewing this! Colin M (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so, so much! I really appreciate your time & guidance. -Historical-idealist (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]