Talk:BarkleyOKRP

Copyright issue?

The article before was lifted directly from a Barkley's press release. I shortened it to include only relevent information and changed the tone to neutral.

Best place to work

"Barkley was named one of the best places to work in Kansas City in 2006, 2007 and 2008 by "The Kansas City Business Journal." I've removed this from the article because I couldn't find a reference. Smartse (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barkley Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090720014859/http://www.barkleyus.com:80/who_we_are/facts_sheet to http://www.barkleyus.com/who_we_are/facts_sheet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move: Barkley Inc. → BarkleyOKRP + full rewrite

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. SmartSE (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Barkley Inc. → BarkleyOKRP – The company rebranded after a 2024 merger; reliable secondary

sources (Adweek, Marketing Dive, Ad Age) overwhelmingly use “BarkleyOKRP.”
Because I have a conflict of interest as a connected contributor, I’m
requesting that an uninvolved editor perform the move. Hello-fax (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Rewrite request

I’ve also prepared a complete, well‑sourced rewrite in my sandbox:

User:Hello-fax/sandbox. Per COI best practice, I’m asking for review and (if there are no objections) for an uninvolved editor to replace the current text with the sandbox version after the page is moved.

Hello-fax (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hello-fax: Thanks for making a request rather than editing directly. In it's current form, that has zero chance of being merged into the existing article. First up the formatting is completely wrong - content should be written in prose, not bullet points and tables. You should try to find some other ad agency articles to give you an idea about what is an appropriate structure and format. It also reads like the corporate equivalent of a CV which makes it seem promotional. Ideally, you'd have some articles that discuss the agency's work in general, rather than individual campaigns and use that as the basis for the content. SmartSE (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Smartse—thank you so much for the quick feedback. I'm determined to get this right and respect the platform, so I really appreciate you're perspective.

I’ll rework the sandbox into narrative prose, trim the résumé‑style lists, and rely on broader independent coverage of the agency rather than campaign spotlights. I’ve already found a few well‑established agency articles as style guides and will ping you (or the talk page) once the draft is closer to MOS‑compliant before proposing any move.

Really appreciate the guidance—cheers! Hello-fax (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SmartSE: — thank you again for the earlier guidance back in July. I’ve tried to take my time and tried my best to research more on how to write for wikipedia. In the last weeks I've been working on a draft the BarkleyOKRP draft per your notes:

• Converted the bullets and tables into prose with standard sections (Lead, History, Operations, Notable work, Awards).
• Removed CV-style detail and promotional phrasing; kept only campaigns covered in independent sources.
• Replaced the `refs=` block with inline citations so all named references are defined once and reused.
• Centered sourcing on independent trade press (Ad Age, Adweek, Campaign US, Digiday, Kansas City Business Journal) and trimmed weaker or primary sources.
• Added appropriate crosslinks to existing Wikipedia articles to help the reader build context (e.g. Mediahub, NCAA Division II, B Corporation, Ad Age, etc.).

If you see any remaining MOS/UNDUE/NOTPROMO issues I should tackle, I’d be glad to adjust.

Thanks again for the nudge toward a more encyclopedic draft. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me! Hello-fax (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Smartse! Reposting this comment as I just realized I tagged you incorrectly in the last post. First of all, thank you again for the earlier guidance back in July. I’ve tried to take my time and research more on how to write for Wikipedia. In the last weeks I've been working on the BarkleyOKRP draft per your notes. In this latest version I've:

• Converted the bullets and tables into prose with standard sections (Lead, History, Operations, Notable work, Awards).
• Removed CV-style detail and promotional phrasing; kept only campaigns covered in independent sources.
• Replaced the `refs=` block with inline citations so all named references are defined once and reused.
• Centered sourcing on independent trade press (Ad Age, Adweek, Campaign US, Digiday, Kansas City Business Journal) and trimmed weaker or primary sources.
• Added appropriate crosslinks to existing Wikipedia articles to help the reader build context (e.g. Mediahub, NCAA * Division II, B Corporation, Ad Age, etc.).

If you see any remaining MOS/UNDUE/NOTPROMO issues I should tackle, I’d be glad to adjust.

Thanks again for the nudge toward a more encyclopedic draft. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me! Hello-fax (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@SmartseJust a quick note that after letting the sandbox sit for a while with no objections, I went ahead and replaced the live article with the neutral rewrite from my sandbox. I’ve kept the COI disclosure, and I’m happy to adjust anything if you spot issues with MOS or sourcing.

Thanks again for all your earlier guidance. I'll keep my eyes on my talk page. Hello-fax (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hello-fax: Unfortunately you never actually pinged me so I am only seeing this now. You have to include {{re|username}} and sign the post in the same edit to send a notification. The draft is an improvement over the previous one, but within a couple of minutes I identified numerous problems with it so have reverted:

• Trade publications have described the combined company as a “big indie,” I can't access Adage, but for Marketing Dive it is clearly the company calling itself that, not the magazine (also bear in mind headlines can't be used for sourcing): We affectionately call it ‘big indie,’” King said.
• BarkleyOKRP offers advertising, brand strategy, design, digital experience and media services. Legacy and specialty groups include BarkleyREI (digital and e-commerce), Grenadier (challenger brands), and Blacktop (design). MissionOne Media operates as the company’s media and analytics arm is sourced to this which only discusses MissionOne Media - therefore most of that is unsourced.
• Awards need independent coverage to merit inclusion - i.e. someone other than the awarding organisation or the winner needs to have taken notice - see WP:ORGAWARD which covers this.
• Including lists of "notable work" is promotional, and we really need an independent source to have determined notable campaigns, not you picking sources which just tell us that a campaign run such as this.
• More generally, the version is extremely skewed to recent events - the company has a 60 year history, so it shouldn't be 90 % events in the last 5 years.

This isn't exhaustive, but shows some of the things that need to be addressed. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)