Wikipedia:Peer review/NBC logos/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's in need of some work and I believe a peer review is a good place to start.
Thanks, Son (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very quickly, an article about logos needs one at the top right. Copy the most visually interesting to the top. It's okay to duplicate it later on because the article is about images. Then, add perhaps four more sentences to the introduction describing how many logos, how they have changed, who the major designers were, a summary of any critiques you can find in reliable sources (not jokes about turkeys, but when someone serious says something), and a sentence about NBC's business, size, founding date, and maybe a link to the CEO's article if there is one, as they usually get final say on logo decisions in the corporate world. Selery (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Brief comment
- YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, you need to remove them as citations. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- They can't be primary sources for existence proofs in this case? Selery (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOYT, explained here. You can use YouTube but it isn't advised, you need permission from the primary/secondary source and even if in this case it is compliant, there are probably better sources out there to depict the NBC peacock idents. Look at books for instance with information about branding exercises. Advertising agencies too. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- My reading of NOYT suggests that screenshots would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps ask on WP:RSN? Selery (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOYT, explained here. You can use YouTube but it isn't advised, you need permission from the primary/secondary source and even if in this case it is compliant, there are probably better sources out there to depict the NBC peacock idents. Look at books for instance with information about branding exercises. Advertising agencies too. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- They can't be primary sources for existence proofs in this case? Selery (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The article is in an early stage with much work to be done to meet WP:V. I would work on this aspect of the article before getting involved deeply in other concerns.
- Many of the claims in the article lack inline citations to reliable sources, as explained by WP:RS. For example, "Second peacock logo/"Laramie Peacock" (1962–1975" makes many claims but gives no sources. Where does this information come from? It is not possible to verify the claims in the article unless the sources are completely identified. To make the claims verifiable, provide a source for any statistics, any unusual claims, any direct quotes, and every paragraph. If all of the claims in a paragraph are supported by a single source, put the inline citation at the end of the paragraph.
- Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. Although you don't have to use templates, the "cite" family of templates may help you organize the citation data in a consistent way. See {{cite web}} and its cousins like {{cite book}} for details.
- To improve the layout, consider merging very short subsections to make larger sections. This will make room for images, which should not overlap section or subsection boundaries or displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons.
- Please review WP:IUP and WP:NFCC for information about Wikipedia's image-use policies. Without going into detail about any particular image, just on the face of it I'd say it would be difficult to justify using this many non-free images. One of guidelines in WP:NFCC says: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I doubt that changing the colors on the peacock feathers, for example, conveys anything significant that cannot be conveyed in words alone.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- They [the images] generally lack alt text according to the checker, BTW. Allens (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)