Talk:Public Relations (Mad Men)

Public Relations (Mad Men) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Public Relations (Mad Men)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I shall be conducting the review. -- Matthew RD 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Well written: See below
Sources: See below
Broadness in coverage: ✓ Pass
Netural: ✓ Pass
Stable: ✓ Pass
Images: Check notes below.

Comments

File:Mad.Men.Public.Relations.jpg, though appropritely tagged, is too big, please upload a small version.
- There seemed to be no smaller variant of the image, so I just replaced it completely.
The plot in general needs a rewrite, there seems to be some sentences that add too much detail. Some other parts feel a little confusing (coming from a user who has not seen the show)
"The Jantzen representatives find the ad offensive, and are not impressed at all." I think it's better to say they are either not impressed or find the ad offensive.
Might want to explain the Crista Flanagan is a recurring actress.
- Done
"Peggy and a coworker engage in a humorous conversation, in which they subsequently refer to "John & Marsha" by Stan Freberg." Does that mean they were referring to themselves as John and Marsha?
- Yes. Should it be reworded?
Keep an eye out on the consistency of the references. Some of them don't have publishers. Also, I noticed there are four references from TV by the Numbers, but on two of them they went by tvbythenumbers.com.
- Done
You didn't add an author for the CBS News source (the Huffington Post and Fox News sources didn't add author's name, the Daily Mail just said "MAIL ONLINE REPORTER" but the CBS News source did (it's Devon Thomas)).
- Huh? It was already there when I was editing.
Itzkoff, Compiled By Dave for Ref #8? You can get rid of the "compiled by"

I'll place the article on hold for seven days. -- Matthew RD 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for amending the issues. That's a pass. Well done. -- Matthew RD 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Note Concerning an External Link

I am writing about an addition I made to the external links for Season 4 and Season 5 of Mad Men which was automatically reverted by your bot. These links are from Kritik, the official weblog of the Unit for Criticism & Interpretive Theory, a recognized institute for cultural studies at the University of Illinois. The Unit for Criticism's multi-authored series of posts on Season 4 and Season 5 of Mad Men is the offshoot of a series of events including a symposium and Duke University Press book on the same topic. Each blog is authored by a recognized expert in cultural history, media studies and/or literary studies. Please do not remove this link as it does comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We would be delighted to answer any questions you may have. 192.17.134.9 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about the addition above that was reverted again. We are not in violation of copyright issues. Please send us any questions you may have about the links we are making to the official weblog Kritik.128.174.194.84 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Public Relations (Mad Men). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]