Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Review

Okay. I will do this review and provide a deep commentary about the writing style and techniques of the article.

Is this review going to be finished? Wizardman 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I will finish it soon. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks since the nominator responded, and three weeks since Wizardman asked the above question. It's time to finish this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything was addressed that the reviewer noted long ago, so I'm just going to close this. Wizardman 04:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope not positively, without checking the remaining sections. The "Controversy" section, in particular, is both vague and contains substandard prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding: having taken a look at all three sections that Hahc21 has not addressed below, I see prose problems with all of them, and places where I think coverage is not up to GA standards. I think the review needs to be reopened, so that Hahc21 can complete it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I will continue this. I apologize (again) for the mess this has created. It's not that I can't be bothered (which I understand, as I have been active on other parts of the pedia) but for other reasons. I will finished my scan and ask the nom to address them. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose comments

Lead

Solved

• "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a professional body for PR practitioners in the United Kingdom." Okay, I can see some use of incorrect wording that could eventually be considered promotional. A good wording might be: "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a public relations organization composed of professional practitioners in the United Kingdom."
• "It was founded in 1948 as the Institute for Public Relations and gained chartered status in 2005. As of March 2012, it had 9,000 members." We can rearrange this sentences to form a single one and add additional information for consistency and clarity: "Originally founded as the Institute for Public Relations in 1948, the CIPR gained chartered status (a professional recognition in the United Kingdom) in 2005, and had 9,000 members by March 2012."
• "CIPR advocates for ethics and professionalism in the field of public relations." This sentence is the only one I found on the lead that has COI.
• "It is governed by a council and an executive board." Can we expand on this? Anything special about the council? or about the excevutive board?

Thanks!! To clarify, I don't have a COI with CIPR. Any suggestion on how to replace the "advocacy" sentence? This is something that will come up on the PRSA article as well. Corporate 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess that the best we can do is to drop it. It does not add any encyclopedic value to the article. I will continue the review soon :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "It is governed by the privy council, an executive board and a President that is elected each year." The Privy Council only governs in the sense that it approved the CIPR's chartered status. The CIPR has a Council (different to Privy Council - appointed by the Queen) comprising member representatives as well as the board and President. Paul W (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

History

Solved

• Is there any information about who held the discussion? Where it was held? Who founded the CIPR? Any key personnel?

Unfortunately not. I did another search, but only turned up a couple non-reliable sources with the same vague description

• I think you might want to expand a bit on the Code of Professional Conduct. Done

Added more contextual information, but couldn't find sources to find out if the original code itself differs greatly from the current

• Is there any information about how it goe the chartered status in 2005? or the previous sentence says it all? :)  Done

Not much, but I added that it was bestowed by the privy council - I think that's what was missing.

• "Journal of Communication Management" or you use " or you italicize. Both should not be used together.  Done

• I found this, which talks a bit more about how the CIPR got its chartered status. This may also be useful here to add a bit about the 1998 act.
• I found this too, which seesm to be very useful. As well as this one.
• I found this document. You can talk a bit about how was the situation in the UK and Europe previous to the foundation of the CIPR with this.

 Done Some additions to History and Controversy using the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Services

Solved

• "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR)" You don't need to specify again the acronym. Also, you can just write CIPR.  Done
• "publishes a code of ethics.." Is this the Code of Professional Conduct? Or is it a different code?  Done

According to the website, it's "code of conduct." They use lowercase as in "it is a code of conduct" but uppercase as "CIPR Code of Conduct." I used the non-branded (lowercase) reference.

• How the Sword of Excellence is awarded? or why? Which are re requirements? I mean, can you expand a bit over it?  Done
• "The organization also hosts industry events." It'll be amazing if you add examples.

Ok, I looked into it, but there doesn't appear to be a specific annual event like you would normally expect that stands out, so I just tweeked this the best way I could.

• This may sevre some purpose on this section.
• Check this. it may have some value, but I'm not sure. Same for this.

Thanks. I used the Observer to replace a primary source, but didn't want to use a PR agency blog as a WP:RS and the Isle news had some issues that made me pass on it. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you on the PR agency blog. I don't know how to differentiante them, so I leave it to you. I will provide more sources as I encounter them for you to evaluate :)

• If you expand over what the "PR Journal, The Communicator and the IPR Newsletter" are, it'll be great. Although, this is optional.

Yah, I skipped expanding on this, because of the lack of secondary sources. I would be fine using primary sources to verify their existence, but don't think we would get an adequate description that way. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. You can use primary sources to explain which are they. Just remove any weasel words. Example: "The Communicator is the most widely distributed public relations journal in the United Kingdom. It focuses on A and B, providing the most reliable source of information. Its first issue came in 2005". And then you can extract some useful info: "The Communicator focuses on A and B and its first issue came in 2005." — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go. I should have looked closer at the source. I can't find sources, because none of them are still published. Though I incorporated some of your feedback into the PRSA article. Most of the publications mentioned weren't published for more than a few years and a look at CIPR's website doesn't draw anything out as far as publishing. So I shifted the tense to historical. I'll do a few more searches in case anything pops up. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also spotted a secondary source for a book series CIPR presumably still publishes. This should help. Seems natural to have some information on publishing, especially for a professional association. CorporateM (Talk) 04:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)  Done

Advocacy

Solved

• "In the aftermath of a Wikipedia editing scandal" Which was the subject of the scandal? When it happened? Also, what this has to do with advocacy? This issue about Wikipedia can be certainly expanded and put into the controversy section.  Done
• "to avoid directly editing articles" This is a bit oo broad and vague. I am sure that the document specified any type of articles, or at least a more elaborated recommendation. Can you expand into it? :)  Done
• First, The contents of the section seem not to have a direct relation with the heading. Lets evaluate:

 Done though I'm not sure controversy is best either. I'll see if I can think up a better word. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• "...advocated for the regulation of political lobbyists in partnership with the Public Relations Consultants Association" Why the CIPR advocated for this? How? What does "regulation of political lobbyists" means? Which is a regulation in this ascpect?

Controversy

Solved

• "for lying" Lying is not an eciclopedic work unless used between quotes.
• I consider that this section needs expansion. I don't see why we should include this complaint. Did it has any efect on the organization? How it was settled? in court? Those are the only controversies the company has had? if so, why not merge it into history? :)

Ok, I just took this out. I don't think it's a substantial part of their history and the whole thing just seems like nonsense. CIPR "expelled" her, but then later confirmed she had already left CIPR before they were expelled. How can you expel someone not currently a member? CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

• Okay. I am now satisfied with the quality of the article. There are still some minor things to polish, but I will take care of them on the talk and directly with Corporate. This is the first time I review an article about this topic and I may overlook some things, but after searching for a while on the internet I consider that no major point is missing. As this has been opened for a long time now, I'm passing the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wohoo!! Thanks so much! CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)