Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billboard (advertising)/archive1

Billboard (advertising)

This article is fantastically detailed, interesting, well-written, good use of images...it's got it all. I've done a little work on it, but not much--User:Jkeiser gets the credit. Meelar 20:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support. Neutral. Some of the external links seem to be duplicated; e.g. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/drf168-00.asp is linked both inline and in the "External links" section. Also, apart from the link to the Scottish study, the article really only discusses billboards in the US; I think it could do with some information on billboards in other countries to be well-rounded.. I found the article interesting, though. — Matt 22:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) ...There's now some mention of Athens and London billboards, which I think helps. — Matt 19:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Object: 1. Metric measurements should be provided, in conjunction with Imperial ones, if not alone. 2. The article does not use words where appropriate ("Modern billboards sport technology that can show 3 different messages in succession.") 3. The section "Advertising style" includes a misuse of the word "hopefully." 4. The article uses first person. 5. The article uses second person. 6. "Reasons" is bolded for no apparent reason. 7. The article is Americo-centric. -- Emsworth 22:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Hopefully" is virtually never used today in the definition I assume you are saying is not misuse, i.e. "in a hopeful manner." Rather, it is almost always used, like other adverbial modifiers like frankly or mercifully or thankfully, as a sentence adverb. The disdain of this latter usage as "incorrect" or "misuse" has become shibboleth among grammar conservatives, who do not deny that sentence adverbs are a useful part of the language, but merely contend that this one word hopefully does not get to participate in that construction.

Let's compare the sentence as it was:

Billboard advertisements are designed to catch a person's attention and leave a memorable impression very quickly, hopefully leaving the reader thinking about the advertisement after they have driven past it.

to how it now reads:

Billboard advertisements are designed to catch a person's attention and leave a memorable impression very quickly, and leave the reader thinking about the advertisement after they have driven past it.

Is it now conclusively better? I think not (even putting aside the awkwardness of the serial use of and leave). Whereas before, it linked the two clauses, designed feature to hoped effect, it now flattens the sentence into three clauses, all subordinate to designed to. You've lost information, all in the name of avoiding a taboo word.

Perhaps to some grammar conservatives' dismay, there is no English Language Academy. English is as English is used. "Hopefully" is overwhelmingly used as a sentence modifier. (There's another sentence modifier there. Would you prefer I said it was "used as a sentence modifier in overwhelming frequency?") There is little or no ambiguity in that usage. It serves in a way that no other substitute does. The idea that there are thoughts that simply cannot be expressed in English because someone finds the construction objectionable is absurd.--TreyHarris 01:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed the objections and nitpicks from above, except: 1. Amero-centricism. The article is definitely focused towards the U.S., mostly due to the availability of U.S. sources. I will understand if that is a disqualifying factor. 2. I could not find any first person and second person in the article. 3. I left the billboard measurements in feet since they are intrinsic to the billboard itself (it would be a bit like saying my 6L engine is a 6.34013 Quart engine). Jkeiser 23:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My objection to the units of measurement used is withdrawn. I have addressed the first and second person issues (in the section "What do we put on billboards"). -- Emsworth 00:20, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Then you object to the article still, but only on the grounds that The article is Americo-centric? --TreyHarris 01:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would withdraw the objection if some information on billboards outside the US is added. I would not continue to object if the article merely concentrates more on American billboards. Currently, however, there is almost no information on billboards elsewhere. -- Emsworth 13:13, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I will search around today. I found some interesting information on Athens, billboards and the Olympic Games, but as for base statistics, given how hard it was to find information on the number of billboards in the U.S., I am not particularly optimistic that I will find this sort of information for other countries. Jkeiser 16:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I have found data about billboards in Britain and Greece and added them to the article. Jkeiser 06:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Now that the article does not contain solely American material, I withdraw the objection. -- Emsworth 19:05, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Multiple images are simply taken from other websites. anthony (see warning)
  • All of them were taken from websites: all authors have been emailed. Most have given permission. This is fair use, however, at least from what I am told in the IRC channel. --Jkeiser 06:11, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It may or may not be fair use, but I think we should take our own pictures rather than taking them from other websites. In the cases where permission under the GFDL has been given this should be noted on the image pages and is acceptable. These so called "fair use" images are easily replacible by more free images and this should be done before this article is featured. anthony (see warning)
      • I'm inclined to agree with Anthony in this case - the fair-use merit of those images is debatable, and (in this case) I don't think it would be hard to replace them. →Raul654 15:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've removed some of the images, and replaced one of them with a GFDL-equivalent. The article now has slightly fewer images, but still, IMO, warrants featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Note that Image:Wall Drug Sign.jpg is probably still reliant on fair use/fair dealing, as it includes the presumably copyrighted billboard, but this kind of incidental fair use I won't object to as it is quite likely to be reusable, even in a commercial encyclopedia. As of the current revision I remove my objection. anthony (see warning) 10:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • It was my understanding that a personal photo of a corporate logo (a Wall Drug sign or Golden Arch) could still be licenced under the GFDL, and not be fair use. Is this wrong? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)