Talk:Second Generation (advertisement)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Second Generation (advertisement) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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
January 6, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

DYK nomination[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Second Generation (advertisement)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Generation (advertisement)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Four+ months is a long time to wait for a review. I'm on it :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

Looks good! Just a few concerns:

Production[edit]

  • “The music was composed by Jonathan Elias.”
Looking at source another composer, David Wittman, is named. Any reason he's not included here and the infobox?
Hmm, not sure. I think Elias was probably listed as the only composer in the majority of sources? I'll have to review a few... Melchoir (talk)
…Actually, he's credited by both SHOOT and AdWeek. Just an oversight. I'll add him… done [1] Melchoir (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • “Casting was also complicated ... anyone who might play college basketball in the future couldn't appear in the ad.”
The source, boardsmag.com, appears to be down or operating really REALLY slow to the extent my browser just gave up. Let's give it some time and see if it comes back up, otherwise we may need to find a new source.
It's archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20081006115056/http://www.boardsmag.com/articles/magazine/20060501/beletic.html. Here's the quote in context: "The more obvious [challenges] were finding kids that could actually do the famous moves that Michael Jordan did only once and asking them to do them over and over for the camera. Plus, there were the complications of NCAA rules where kids that have any intention of playing college ball or have the potential of playing college ball can't be in an advertisement. We did an absurd amount of casting…" Melchoir (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Added archiveurl [2] Melchoir (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

  • “The ad received positive reviews ... as one of the "Best Spots of February 2006".”
The first source does not support the claims in this excerpt, and the second source is another dead link. Hopefully we can find a suitable source to replace it? — MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Added archiveurl [3] to http://archive.is/Zi7c. The title of the article is "Best Spots of February 2006", hence the quote. Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • “Creativity called the ad "impeccably executed", and Boards called it "so rich in detail that it entices in an instant".”
Same situation with this boardsmag source, hopefully it'll come back online.
Hmm, for that source, the archive.org and archive.is archives are both broken. And my public library no longer has Factiva access. However, like I said for Creativity below, this is a print source, so if someone wanted to verify that quote, they could track down the May 2006 issue in a library. Melchoir (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. Do you think we should remove the link and use {{cite journal}} instead? — MusikAnimal talk 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done! [4] Melchoir (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • “In an interview, Beletic commented on this video: "It is pretty awesome to watch."”
Again with the gosh-darned link rot. The quote should make this easy to search on the web, but I was not able find a replacement. I don't see any extreme value in this statement anyway, if you wish to simply remove it.
Factiva is a pain, but I happen to have a copy of that article saved on my computer. Here's the context: "c The Brand Jordan job-what was the most challenging part of that, and how did you go about addressing it? bb The project required precision. The camera movement, the lensing, and the blocking of the action had to exactly match the original Michael Jordan historic moments. This takes time. Our shooting schedule was aggressive. There is a split screen of this Jordan spot put next to the original footage that someone has uploaded onto YouTube. It is pretty awesome to watch." The source is a print magazine, so I think we should keep it. If someone wants, they can go to a library and find Creativity volume 14, issue 6, page 57+ and verify the quote themselves. Melchoir (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I take you just need an account or what not to see the work. I wouldn't consider this quote likely to be challenged and as you say with effort it is verifiable in it's current fashion, so I think we're okay :) — MusikAnimal talk 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's all I have. Please let me know if you disagree with anything I had to say in my review. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 04:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I've addressed everything. Melchoir (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I think there are too many unfree images. Especially for a short ad. Raised at NFCR. Beerest 2 talk 04:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Valid concern. I have no qualms on removing a few – and my apologies for not taking note of this, admittedly I'm not as well-acquainted with this policy. — MusikAnimal talk 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thats fine, there are quite a few people who don't know it that well. We should wait for what the nominator says, though. Beerest 2 talk 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
(shrug) I'm not an expert on this policy. I commented at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Second Generation (advertisement) that two is better than one, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Melchoir (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree the highlight image should take precedence over the tagline. Are you content with using the free throw image as opposed to the other two? I found it to be the more "memorable" scene from the ad. — MusikAnimal talk 16:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the free throw line dunk, File:Nike Second Generation 35;02.png, is more memorable and recognizable than the other two scenes, File:Nike Second Generation 02;27.jpg or File:Nike Second Generation 38;02.jpg. Melchoir (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:NFCR has been closed. That should no longer be a hindrance of this nomination. Thanks to all for your participation and understanding. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 01:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


Green tickY The NFCR discussion has been closed, leaving just the sole image in the infobox. WP:GACR #6 has now been met and as such the GAN has passed. Great work! Face-smile.svgMusikAnimal talk 01:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article for peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)