Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Cosby in advertising/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]
A few years ago, I noticed the article on Bill Cosby had nothing of his advertising pitchman career. I did some poking around, and discovered he had endorsed more than Jell-O and Coke, and that there was enough content to justify what I thought would be a large stub. It turned out that there was a wealth of coverage in news outlets and books, resulting in the large article you see today.
In June 2013, the article was promoted to good article status. Peer review requests in both June to July 2013 and December 2014 to January 2015 went uncommented on, so, with lack of suggestion that there's work to be done on the article, I'm submitting it to FAC. Sources on the topic have largely been exhausted, and other than the concluding segment related to recent accusations, the topic is totally dormant.
Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I was drawn here from WikiProject Advertising and Marketing. Some of the wording choices feel a bit un-natural to me. Just looking at the Lede, "much desired" and "chronologically, he appeared on behalf of" seem like slightly awkward wording choices. I don't know what is meant by "crossover appeal" or if "afraid of the dark" is really such a significant phrase that it belongs there. I think "he has since polled in the bottom sixth" is a bit unclear. He wasn't polled himself after all, but rather polls of the public have found that he is one of the six least-trusted. "Bottom sixth" is icky phrasing. Very nice work though! CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input! I've modified three of those instances, but I'm not sure what to do with "crossover appeal". I belivthis term might have its roots in a period article. It's basically to say that American advertising had ads targeted to African Americans, featuring the images of African Americans, but they didn't feel that celebrity endorsements by black people would appeal to white people, before Cosby came along. Crossover is to refer to both backgrounds. I'm not sure how else to summarize this concept. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "He is noted as an African American spokesperson used to market to a <white? or mixed?> demographic, whereas at the time black spokespeople were predominantly only used to target african american demographics" CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a change. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "He is noted as an African American spokesperson used to market to a <white? or mixed?> demographic, whereas at the time black spokespeople were predominantly only used to target african american demographics" CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input! I've modified three of those instances, but I'm not sure what to do with "crossover appeal". I belivthis term might have its roots in a period article. It's basically to say that American advertising had ads targeted to African Americans, featuring the images of African Americans, but they didn't feel that celebrity endorsements by black people would appeal to white people, before Cosby came along. Crossover is to refer to both backgrounds. I'm not sure how else to summarize this concept. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- sorry but after three weeks this review doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'll be archiving it shortly. I know you've tried a Peer Review recently that didn't attract participants but perhaps you could see if anyone else at WikiProject Advertising and Marketing would like to informally comment on the article talk page, and you could legitimately invite some of those reviewers to a subsequent re-nomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.