Talk:Coming Together (advertisement)/Archive 1

POV

This article has several POV issues:

• attack format (see WP:COATRACK): more weight is given to criticisms than the subject (in some cases, individual critics receive more coverage than the title subject)
• editorialization (e.g. "purported"; see WP:ALLEGED)
• indiscriminate sourcing including blogsNovangelis (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been two months since the above message was posted, and while it is still true, it is not as true as it was on July 15, in my opinion, as I have added a commendation section and removed the unreliable material from blogs. Jinkinson (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Implying that an article which does not mention the ad is a "commendation" of it, rather than of the broader corporate policies, is original research. Pseudobalance is not NPOV. It could be argued that the article is worse, now.Novangelis (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Per request

A request for specific problems was made on my talk page.

1. This is not an article. It's a loose collection of topics. At first it is about a two-minute spot, then it is about an infographic, then it is about a broader US campaign by the same name, then its about an ad campaign at the antipodes.
2. See WP:Criticism for why the article is structurally POV (and why adding a "commendations" section does not fix it).
3. Too many primary sources including activist groups.
4. The use of non-reliable sourcing remains problematic. For example, "Forbes sites" has a specific disclaimer: "The opinions expressed are those of the writer." In other words, there is no assurance of editorial oversight or fact checking.
5. Original research. A press release is described as an announcement in the New York Times; even if they took out an add in the New York Times, it does not mean that it was only the NYT. The source for the Australia/New Zealand campaign draws no connections to the US campaign; it's just tacked on as "similar".
6. Biased language: loaded words like "follow up" imply that there were phases or a response when there is nothing to support that it was not simply "going live". There is a lot of credential building for the critics.
7. Due weight: including excessive use of quotations that dwarf the actual descriptions of the various subjects. One blog gets seven bullet points where nominal subject (at that point) is described in five.

This POV tag is more than well founded. POV tags do not decay over time; the number of months that have passed change nothing. Deleting one blog is not going to have any significant impact on a deeply biased "article".Novangelis (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I agree, this article is very biased. I realize that I was expressing my opinion when I wrote this article, and I regret having done so; at the time I created this article I was only focused on dumping information from sources into it and was not devoting much attention to potential bias (as I should have). As for the criticisms of this article:

• I intend to remove the content not directly pertaining to the original TV ad as it is indeed irrelevant.
• I am not sure exactly what constitutes "credential building". Perhaps "well known food journalist", which I have removed.
• This needs a lot of work. I read the page you pointed me to, and it says "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like..." To this end, I will retitle the section "reactions" and will present both praise that this ad has received as well as critical statements that have been made about it.
• When I linked to the press release, I was not saying that this press release was a New York Times ad, I realize it was not. Rather, I was talking about how the Company announced these commitments both through a press release and through a New York Times ad, the latter of which can be viewed here: [1] (I realize this is a somewhat biased source, and is also a blog, but at least its author is notable).
• I read WP:QUOTEFARM and intend to rephrase the quotes (or at least some of them) so that they are not word-for-word.
• Lastly, Novangelis argues that I gave too little space to describing the ad itself, which is, again, correct. I intend to fix this by adding more bullet points to the "Message" section. Jinkinson (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot to be done. Retitling a section does nothing for the structure. Deleting almost everything may have been the wrong direction. The alternative would be to refocus: instead of focusing on the single ad, it might be worth changing it to the "Coming Together (advertising campaign)" or something to that effect. I am neither a food industry or advertising expert. You might want to get advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink or some other group. They might be able to help you figure out the best sense of scope relative to other articles pertaining to Coca-cola advertising, find better sources (for example, what have advertising experts said on the quality of the campaign?), and are likely to have more interest in the article than I do.

With regard to original research and verifiability, another user who has accessed the source should have no challenge finding the basis. References need to support claims directly. When citing material that depends upon primary sources.

On a side note, I indented your text for proper talk page discussion format.Novangelis (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)