The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll have a review posted some time today or tomorrow.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Lead:
Description:
Some critics claimed Joe's nose was intentionally drawn in a phallic fashion, as to suggest that smoking was a verile pursuit– I'm not saying that this can't be included in the article at all, but it feels undue to list it among his basic traits. I suggest moving it to the bottom of this section. Also, avoid "claimed", as it implicitly casts doubt.
essentially appearing as a muscular humanoid– "essentially" can be lost here. Either it does or it doesn't.
Although television advertisements for cigarettes were outlawed in the United States– Was this before or after Joe Camel was created?
would often depict– "often depicted" is more concise.
RJR also ran promotions– RJR is defined in the lead and again in the next section. This would be a better place to define it in the body. For clarity, maybe "parent company R. J. Reynolds (RJR) also ran promotions"
History:
However, the American version– "However" can be removed without changing the meaning.
Salisbury claimed that RJR would reject– Avoid "claimed". Also, "rejected" is more concise.
However, much of Mangini's prosecution was based on the review of RJR internal documents to assess company intent rather than reviewing market data.– The wording here casts doubt on her methodology rather than simply describing it.
claiming only the federal government– It doesn't cast doubt the same way as the others, but "claiming" still isn't quite the right word here.
Legacy: No issues.
Spot checks:
old action and adventure films. It only supports action films, and that he specifically geared it to those of the 1940s might also be relevant.
There are a few areas where this article doesn't cover everything that it probably should.
exposing children to the dangers of smoking– Even if this was the FTC's stated position, it should be clear that this is what the FTC is alleging. Right now it reads like the article is taking a position on "the dangers of smoking".
No recent disputes.
Both images have a valid non-free use rationale, though it wouldn't hurt to flesh out the details at File:JoeCamel.jpg
TarkusAB I've looked over the article again.
Joe expressive eyerbrows– Is this a typo?
but in 1994 decided not to act after three of five commissioners voted not to act– This uses "not to act" twice in a row.
briefly drove a spike of interest– "increased interest" is simpler.
Once these are addressed, that should be it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll have a review posted some time today or tomorrow.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Lead:
Description:
Some critics claimed Joe's nose was intentionally drawn in a phallic fashion, as to suggest that smoking was a verile pursuit– I'm not saying that this can't be included in the article at all, but it feels undue to list it among his basic traits. I suggest moving it to the bottom of this section. Also, avoid "claimed", as it implicitly casts doubt.
essentially appearing as a muscular humanoid– "essentially" can be lost here. Either it does or it doesn't.
Although television advertisements for cigarettes were outlawed in the United States– Was this before or after Joe Camel was created?
would often depict– "often depicted" is more concise.
RJR also ran promotions– RJR is defined in the lead and again in the next section. This would be a better place to define it in the body. For clarity, maybe "parent company R. J. Reynolds (RJR) also ran promotions"
History:
However, the American version– "However" can be removed without changing the meaning.
Salisbury claimed that RJR would reject– Avoid "claimed". Also, "rejected" is more concise.
However, much of Mangini's prosecution was based on the review of RJR internal documents to assess company intent rather than reviewing market data.– The wording here casts doubt on her methodology rather than simply describing it.
claiming only the federal government– It doesn't cast doubt the same way as the others, but "claiming" still isn't quite the right word here.
Legacy: No issues.
Spot checks:
old action and adventure films. It only supports action films, and that he specifically geared it to those of the 1940s might also be relevant.
There are a few areas where this article doesn't cover everything that it probably should.
exposing children to the dangers of smoking– Even if this was the FTC's stated position, it should be clear that this is what the FTC is alleging. Right now it reads like the article is taking a position on "the dangers of smoking".
No recent disputes.
Both images have a valid non-free use rationale, though it wouldn't hurt to flesh out the details at File:JoeCamel.jpg
TarkusAB I've looked over the article again.
Joe expressive eyerbrows– Is this a typo?
but in 1994 decided not to act after three of five commissioners voted not to act– This uses "not to act" twice in a row.
briefly drove a spike of interest– "increased interest" is simpler.
Once these are addressed, that should be it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)