Wikipedia:Peer review/The Epic Split/archive1

The Epic Split

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take thas article to WP:FAC. This is the first time I am attempting such a thing and would like to get a review to see what would need to be done to get that done.

Thanks, PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest some general expansions. @PhotographyEdits Wingwatchers (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

Thanks for your work on this article. Some general comments from me on ways that the article could be further improved:

• I would recommend requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to firm up the prose.
• There is some inconsistency between the lead/infobox which say it is 75 seconds long, and the external link box which says it is 1 minute and 16 seconds long.
• The infobox says it was released on 22 November 2013, but that's not consistent with the Variety source, which says 13 November.
• I don't see the point of putting Volvo's website in the infobox
• Piping "Spanish airport" to Ciudad Real International Airport in the lead is a bit of a MOS:EGG; maybe just name the airport?
• Production agency and director should be moved up earlier in the lead
• The commercial itself didn't "cause" parodies to be made, people made them in response to the commercial
• I would add a brief caption to the infobox image indicating that it's a still from the commercial
• "The commercial then states" is kind of vague wording, and without watching the actual commercial I would have thought that it was a voice-over saying that. If you're going for a comprehensive description of the commercial, I would make it more clear that it is just words on a screen.
• Background could use some expansion. Maybe some more information on the "Live Tests" series in general, some background on the Forsman & Bodenfors agency and their relationship with Volvo, how Van Damme became involved, etc.? I have not looked at all the sourcing so I'm not sure if some of these suggestions are actually sourceable, but it would be a beneficial addition if they are.
• "Volvo Trucks has appointed the advertising agency" this was kind of vague and Forsman & Bodenfors have not been mentioned since the lead, so it would be good to name them again here.
• "It was the sixth advert released in the series called Live Tests" this information is repeated in both the background and production sections, you probably only need it in background
• Be consistent about capitalizing "Van" in "Van Damme" – there is a lowercase "van" in the Production section
• Be consistent about whether you are referring to the commercial as "The Epic Split" or "Epic Split" (the former is probably best), and whether it's in quotation marks, italics, or unadorned (the first is probably best).
• "advert" is an informal term
• I don't think the first sentence of the Reception section is quite consistent with the source if you're looking at the details. It was watched by over a million people within a week, and over 41 million (or 48.5 million per Visible Measures)
• "the advert received six prizes" it would be good to be more specific here and discuss what prizes it won
• "in causing immediate action of the viewer" not sure what this means. Action = purchasing a Volvo?
• I am a little skeptical of the neuroscience claims about "high memory encoding effectiveness" in the Analysis section – this is veering into scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed
• "late-2014" hyphen not needed
• Source states "$3–4.7" million, so you should be specific about that rather than rounding to 4
• "a face-swapped variant was distributed" this is currently vague – was it like an officially distributed parody or an internet meme?
• "mayor" can be in lowercase
• Lots of passive voice in the Parodies section making it unclear who created these parodies
• "would go on to film" → "filmed"
• "featuring the real Chuck Norris" – the previous sentences did not make it clear enough that the 2013 parody did not actually feature Norris
• The Further Reading link looks to be a bachelor's thesis, what makes it scholarly enough to merit listing in the article?

Hope these are helpful. I enjoyed learning about the commercial. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thank you, these are very helpful. I will work through your comments ASAP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: are you still working on the above comments? Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 Yes, although I was busy with other stuff at the same time. Sorry, I'll try to work on this soon again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 Yes. Next time I'll do one article at the same time, I just finished another GA review which was still opened. I'll work on this soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: a follow-up ping: do you still plan to work on this? The longer it takes to respond to comments, the less likely an editor will follow-up on questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)