Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Cosby in advertising/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2015 [1].

---

Bill Cosby in advertising

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Throughout the 1980s in particular, Bill Cosby was one of the most desired advertising pitchmen, representing an intriguing range of products. A few years ago, I noticed this part of his career wasn't mentioned in his main article at all. What I thought would be a large stub turned into a major article.

Article milestones include the promotion to good article status in June 2013, and a substantial cleanup by GOCE Hall of Famer Baffle gab1978. Submissions to peer review have not attracted comment, even before the extensive allegations against Cosby. Given that his career is now pretty much over, it's not a stretch to consider the article complete in coverage.

Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - I'll take a look now and make straightforward tweaks as I go and jot queries below:
  • My apologies for the delay. I was predisposed to expecting no comments on this article, and stopped checking Wikipedia. Once I discovered that you had kindly volunteered to review, @Casliber:, my only opportunities connected to the interview were on a mobile device or at work. I'm at a desktop now, so I'm giving it a go.

In para 2 of Personality section, I'd switch the two observations around - professional first then negative working with bit second

Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

NB: try and avoid 1-2 sentence paras (lots of these - either combine or retrieve some more material)

Well, there's less than when you reviewed, but multiple still remain. Generally, they're either a milestone that influences the topic (Cosby Show), or an outlying but non-trivial fact about the career (he did a PSA, he did Coke spots before the main bulk of his Coke work). Usually these small paragraphs are landlocked by larger ones that have little relation topically, so it's hard to merge. Where do you stand of the remaining examples. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

the end of the 1970s segment is choppy - try and make it flow with more info (preferable) or just combine the paras

I've moved all commendations in that decade to the end of the section, and combined the two paragraphs about Jello products. I'm not sure I can really find more information on the Jello spots in the 1970s, I've largely exhausted reliable sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise, about African Americans who were hired as advertising spokespeople, said there were "very few blacks who can command the fees being paid at the top end of the scale", Cosby being one of them is ungainly. It can be de-quoted and trimmed, something like "In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise reported that Cosby was one of only a very few African Americans who could command the among the highest fees paid for advertising spokespeople."

I've done similar, but also revamped the next sentence. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cosby's role as an advertising spokesperson was also addressed; - I wouldn't have said "addressed" as the verb here. maybe something like "Recalling Cosby's status in advertising,..."

I've done a larger reformat in this area, how's it read? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found it engaging and a nice little article overall. Needs some (but not an insurmountable amount of) work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I think we are closer now. I find that once I've read these through a few times, I tend to miss things. My position now is possible support on comprehensiveness and prose, but will be firmer if another prose-reader comes and take a look. I'll try and ping one or more...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• This has been on the FAC 'urgents' list for a week now -- I'm always loathe to archive repeat noms for lack of interest but unless other reviewers show up soon it may come to that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nortonius

I'm seeing quite a lot of problems with the prose, e.g. these examples just from the lead:

• As of 2002, Cosby held the record for being the longest-serving celebrity spokesperson for a product, Jell-O. I'd re-word that as something like "... for a product through his work with Jell-O."

Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Great.Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Cosby was one of the first black people to appear in the United States as a spokesperson; ... At this stage in the article I really think this and a subsequent instance of "spokesperson" needs qualifying, e.g. as "advertising spokesperson".

That's fair, changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• in the mid-century 20th century What is intended here? Reading the article, I get the feeling that "in the second half of the 20th century" might be better.

Changed. I have no idea when century got doubled up like that, but the mid-century was initially meant to refer to when he started, the point at which white viewers were least willing to accept black pitchmen. The rest of the sentence, as it is now, does need "second half" instead. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• In spite of contradicting soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he was considered very believable. Presumably Cosby wasn't "contradicting soft drink pitches" since he was making them. I'd re-write this as "In spite of making contradictory soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he continued to be considered very believable", although I'm not at all sure that "very believable" fits here – would something like "highly effective" be an improvement?

Good catch re contradicting/contradictory. I've gone half-way with effective/believable, just simply because believability has been mentioned in many sources, as his key trait. Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood about "believable", that looks fine to me now. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• financially wealthy Just "wealthy".

Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• ... public opinion polling places him near the bottom of a list of 3,000 personalities, when rated on trust and effectiveness. When is this? Should it say "as of 2014 public opinion placed him ..." as the article appears to indicate?

I've moved the wording to past tense, but changed the rest differently, to avoid repeating the year. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's better. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather support a nomination than just give reasons why I think it should fail, so I could have a go at combing the prose if those suggestions look sensible. I don't know how quick I'd be, though, and I haven't yet looked at the article closely enough to spot problems of different kinds. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in reviewing, @Nortonius:. I've fixed most of what you've indicated, and appreciate your through review. I wish this article has received attention in earlier processes, but I'm very grateful for input from two contributors here. Many thanks. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad you found that helpful, the lead does look much better to me now. I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the same way over the next day or two. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Some more:

• In the mid-1980s, Cosby's Q Score deemed him the "most familiar" and "most persuasive" endorser.[4] At the peak of his career, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, which meant 70 percent of 1,000 surveyed United States respondents said they thought highly of him.[5] I see several problems here, e.g. "Cosby's Q Score ... Cosby had a Q Score" seems repetitive, and "At the peak of his career" in what? Which career? And, by the way, did the survey have exactly 1,000 respondents? I'm a little surprised by that round figure, but then I haven't seen the source. Anyway I'd suggest running these two sentences together as something like "At the peak of his advertising career in the mid-1980s, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, meaning that 70 percent of those responding to a survey of 1,000 United States residents thought highly of him, thus deeming him the most familiar and persuasive endorser.[put both sources in the same ref here]" If the survey didn't have exactly 1,000 respondents, give the precise figure if you can or just drop "1,000". Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• ↑ Did you miss this one, or...? Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just was crunched for time. Yes, it was exactly 1000, according to the source. Changed.

I haven't merged references, as I was considering eliminating "Works cited", and instead pointing to individual pages with >{{rp|6}} (which renders as .) Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise; that bit looks fine to me now. My own feeling is that, while separate, multiple refs look untidy and give the reader two or more times the work to view the citations, {{rp}} just adds another level of complexity, and further interruption to the flow, when reading an article. Since you ask, I would change the whole ref system to use {{sfn}} when giving a single ref, or <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2015|p=N}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2015|p=N}}.</ref> when there's more than one citation in a ref. Then I'd change "Works cited" to "Bibliography", move it beneath "References", and change {{cite book}} to {{citation}}. Have a look at e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver, for how I've set up refs there: hovering the mouse pointer over the ref brings up a live link to the relevant item in the bibliograpy or to whatever online source is being cited. Very easy on the reader, and pretty easy to do, too. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Industry publication Advertising Age said Cosby remained the most-trusted celebrity for 14 years and that the "only person" to surpass him during that period was the Pope.[6] When was this said about Cosby? The source speaks of Cosby topping a "public approval index", rather than saying he was "most trusted celebrity". And, as I understand it (though after a quick look I haven't seen where this might be specified), quotations need to be followed immediately by a citation, e.g. "the 'only person'[ref] to surpass him". In this instance though I would again suggest a re-write, something like this: "In 2003, industry publication Advertising Age said that "during [Cosby's] 14-year reign over the ad industry's public approval index [he had only been surpassed by] the Pope."[ref]"

I suppose that Ad Age didn't actually say it was the Q Score, I just extrapolated given the Q Score's prominence and endurance. Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Actor Tom Hanks was the Q Score leader in 2014, with a score of 39.[5] I would consider putting this in a footnote, although I can see that it illustrates Cosby's score in the mid-1980s. If you want to keep it, then I think it looks a little out of place here, and would suggest tacking it onto the end of the earlier sentence concerning Cosby's mid-1980s score, so that you would have something like (per my earlier suggestion): "... the most familiar and persuasive endorser[refs] – by comparison, in 2014 the actor Tom Hanks led the Q Score with a score of 39.[ref]"

Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I notice that you now have a reference in that footnote to Bialik that doesn't "group" with the seven existing ones, and it can't be made to group with <ref></ref> tags because of how the footnotes are formatted – it produces an error. That can be fixed with Template:Refn, and, as you only have a handful of footnotes, I've gone ahead and done it. I also fixed a ref in the process. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• second-most trusted I believe that should be "second most-trusted".

I'll go with it. Googling, the same news story on India in different sources listed it as the "second most trusted", "second-most trusted", and "second most-trusted" country. So really I have no idea what's the best way, so I'll trust you.

Feel free! Once upon a time I wouldn't have put a hyphen in there at all, but on WP it'll be expected. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll come back with some more in a bit, again assuming you find that helpful! Nortonius (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that, in a few hours, it'll be a week since the nominator has done anything on WP. When I first wrote of "combing the prose" I was offering to "fix" it as best I could myself. I'm still up for having a go at that if it helps. I suppose this FAC shall be closed imminently if nothing happens. Nortonius (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good that you're back Zanimum. Did you miss my comment above, beginning "In the mid-1980s ..."? Also, "|location=" isn't required in citations and invites trouble: I note some inconsistency with that in the article and recommend removing it. I'll do that myself unless you either beat me to it or wish to object. Nortonius (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've commented above, it was a time issue at the time I was doing the other edits. Do you think we might be better to continue in peer review, as opposed to prolonging FAC this long? Or is it okay to continue this process as-is? (I haven't done the whole FAC thing since the last decade.) The FAC nomination partially was just an attempt to be noticed, something that wasn't happening at lower processes.

I haven't removed locations yet; no locations would be preferable to me going in and adding locations for those that are currently locationless?

Thanks for the refn| coding, I didn't know that option was available.

Thanks for your continued help. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood about the time issue; but that is an issue here, in an FAC. It'll be up to the FAC co-ordinators whether this FAC is prolonged, and I'm sorry this article didn't get any attention when you went for peer review. I've only had one stab at an FAC, which stalled when there was a difference of opinion about sourcing and too few reviewers commenting to form a clear consensus.[2] But I'm fine with looking at this article now that I've started, and as long as you're finding it helpful, whether or not it goes back to peer review. If that happened, though, and with your agreement, I think I'd be more inclined to edit the article myself and then see if you liked what I'd done – at the present rate it could be weeks before we're done. About locations, "adding [them] for those that are currently locationless" is one of the problems that can arise when giving locations – sometimes it can be a headache deciding which location to give, or even finding one at all. Just get rid of them IMHO. Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think this meets the criteria. There must be some deeper analysis of the cultural significance around, one would think, but this seems to give a good factual account of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. I commend you on tackling this article - it's a difficult topic, especially right now. I think this is an excellent start, but I feel there is more room for improvement. I am seeing some prose issues as well. Just as examples in the lead:

• • There is some awkward wording: "through to"
  • Almost every sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the lead has a semicolon to link two thoughts together. This is fine occasionally, but that is being very overused.
• " In 2014, one commenter said" -> can we be more specific? Is this a fan? An industry person?
• I question whether personality should go first, or whether career in advertising should be first. Why did you choose the former?
• I think that starting with the Nat King Cole quote is a good idea. Is there a date when the show ran/was cancelled? That will help put it a little more in perspective.
• Is there a date/year when Cosby got the job with White Owl Cigars?
• Direct quotes need to have a citation at the end of the quote (not at the end of the next sentence).
• the criticism section is almost entire quotations.
• I think the information on the scandal might out to go in Criticism.

Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I commend the people involved in this article, and I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but I just don't want to see an article on the advertising career of an unrepentant serial rapist on the front page of Wikipedia. I realize this article was created and virtually completed long before the crap hit the fan, and that could not have been predicted ... at the same time, I personally don't think we can simply ignore the facts (yes, they are alluded to in the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to promote this article to the main page). Also, the article is fairly fork-y (I don't know how much that matters, but I like to see main articles rather than their forks on the main page [again, I know this is not wiki policy]). Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not an article is displayed on the main page is a separate issue to FA status. There are a number of FAs that have been felt not to be prudent to put on the main page, and there'd be a good reason for not having this one either - but that is a separate issue. FA is about the quality of the article itself and whether there remains anything else to do to improve it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.