Talk:Where's Herb?/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looks good, but I have a few comments. A few comments:

I would like to have seen the article split in two sections: "campaign" and "impact" (alt. "recption" or both).
- Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not discuss the impact or reception. It seems to me that the lead introduces instead of summarizes the article, since the "end of the story" is missing.
- I think it's better now. Please let me know if anything more needs to be added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"JWT" is causing some problems. The mention of "J. Walter Thompson" links to a person who had been dead for nearly sixty years when the campaign was launched. Instead, link to the company, "JWT". Also link to this in the infobox. The trend to official rename the company to the abbreviation started in the 1990s, so use the term that was used during the 1980s.
- Good point. Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria say that there should be an image with the article. Any image from the campaign would be considered fair use.
- According to the GA criteria, images are not required. However, for a topic that depends on the appearance of the subject for a thorough understanding, an image is definitely a good idea. I added one, but I put it into the body of the article because I couldn't get it to show up in the infobox. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the contest only in the US, was Canada also involved. I am certain that Burger King had reached Norway by 1986, so was the campaign also there?
- I have looked all over, and I haven't seen an explicit mention anywhere. Since there was just one Herb, I assume it was US-only but can't say for sure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is short (this is not a problem in itself), but several of the sources go into further detail, for instance into the description of Herb. Other things include the creative process (choosing a name)
- I added the part about choosing a name, but I can't find anything more about his appearance in the sources. If there is something that I'm missing, could you please let me know which article it is in? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read something about white socks. But thinking about it, it isn't the most important issue, so it's fine to leave it out.
    - The article currently states that he was seen wearing "white socks, black pants, and thick-rimmed glasses". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find a way to make the sentence "Anyone finding Herb would win a prize." merge into another one (it is a bit short).
- Done, I think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says 1986, while the text says 1985 and 1986.
- Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "15-year-old" not "15-year old"
- Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As "see also" sections are discouraged, and both the links are in the navbox, removing the who section would be appropriate.
- I have never seen anything about "See also" sections being discouraged. Including links that are already in the prose is frowned upon, but I think the current format meets the criteria (especially as the Navigation Box is hidden). I could remove "Burger King products" because it doesn't directly relate to the article if you would like. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Seealso says: "... navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links." There is nothing wrong with "see also" sections, but if all the links are in the prose or in a navbox, the section isn't needed.
    - Sounds good. It's gone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Please let me know if anything else needs some work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with a good article. Hope the bot gets well soon ;) Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.