![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Farris, Paul W.; Neil T. Bendle; Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein
(2010). Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
ISBN
0137058292.. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the
GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2012021110008071. Permission applies only to such content from this book as is already present in the article on December 22, 2011. See item #21 in the OTRS records ![]() |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ShawnBoom.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this article is still under construction or not, so I've left a message on the authors' talk page asking them to add an 'underconstruction' tag if they're still working on it. CultureDrone ( talk) 10:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have spent several days restructuring the page on Brand awareness. It appeared to have become a dumping ground for all manner of unrelated content. I have:
A couple of issues remain to be resolved:
I believe that the page is in relatively good shape, and has a overall guiding structure which may be useful to future contributors. The content is now well sourced - from reliable academic sources, and also popular sources where appropriate.
I believe that the tag about it being "like an essay" (too personal and lacking encyclopedic style) could be removed at this stage?
BronHiggs ( talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The WP:El policy does not include a maximum or minimum number of external links. Although it says that external links should be kept to a minimum, it qualifies this by noting "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". The links that were included included on this page were carefully selected for the purpose. In my view, 6 links is by no means excessive for an article of the size and complexity of Brand awareness.
For each of the following links that you chose to delete, would you kindly provide explanations as to why they should not be included on the page. If you are unable to do so, would you kindly reinstate them at your earliest convenience.
As I am sure you are aware, it is not enough to simply cite WP policy as the reason for reversion. It is expected that you show precisely how the policy applies in each specific case. Thank-you in anticipation BronHiggs ( talk) 09:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. I should have pointed out that links to four high ranking journals and two peak industry associations can hardly be seen as 'poor quality' external links. BronHiggs ( talk) 10:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@
Stesmo: Thank-you for your response. You are right to draw my attention to one link, which while not "dead", directs to a non-existent page on a fully operational website. The link was working well enough at the time when it was added, several weeks ago. That it has become a misdirect in the interim suggests that the page in question is unstable and should be amended.
I regret that your other comments do nothing to persuade me that the 6 specific links are not useful to users of Wikipedia. Some of these links provide access to articles, case studies and other information that common sense would suggest is of great benefit to students of marketing. Nor am I persuaded that 6 links consistitute a "lengthy", "comprehensive" or "excessive" listing of external links in the context of this article. I am happy to add these links back to the article along with a brief explanation as to usefulness of each item - as had been my original intention before my attention was diverted by several articles that were misleading and much in need of attention and which, in my mind at the time, became a higher priority. At the time, I incorrectly formed the impression that external links were relatively innocuous - but as you and several other editors have seen fit to delete external links from articles in the marketing area, I have been forced to revise my view on this subject and I now view external links as much higher priority.
As far as journals are concerned, there are standard independent ranking schemes (See, http://www.abdc.edu.au/master-journal-list.php for the Australian rankings of international and local journals- there are US and UK equivalents, but I just don't have the URLs handy), so it is no secret as to which journals are high ranking. As far as industry associations are concerned, I am wondering whether former links to U.S. associations doesn't constitute a form of inadvertent bias. I am now thinking that the list of external links should be expanded to include peak industry bodies in other English speaking countries including the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore and Malaysia.
I have no intentions of writing new articles for Wikipedia. My mission for the past several months has been to improve the quality of marketing and advertising articles, many of which contain serious factual errors, fundamental conceptual flaws and in many cases internal contradictions, to the extent that these articles have become highly misleading, confusing or downright unitelligible. Sadly, some of the more serious errors, some of which have been in place for 8-10 years, are beginning to to find their way into text-books and journal articles - which is a great concern to me and to marketing academics/ professionals in general. Any work which takes time and attention away from my priority of improving articles is of little interest to me. I simply could not justify the time to develop a new article when older articles desperately require restructuring, reconceptualisation, the addition of reliable sources and the removal of internal contradictions.
If, after adding explanations for each of the links, you are still of a mind to delete, then perhaps we would be best advised to seek the opinion of a 3rd party in this regard. BronHiggs ( talk) 23:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Stesmo: I am copying this discussion to the talk page of 'Brand Awareness' BronHiggs ( talk) 03:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)