Talk:BBC UK regional TV on satellite

GA review - on hold

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it, and feel that there are a few things that need sorting before the article can become a Good Article.

1. Well-written: Indifferent
2. Factually accurate: Unclear, due to lack of references
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Fail
7. Images: Pass

Version reviewed: [1]

Comments:

Although useful, the article generally suffers from a lack of references. Thus, although the information in it is likely to be correct, I had no clear way of finding out whether this was so - there is no reference or external links section, for example. In addition, I didn't feel that some of the prose was particularly well written. The opening, for example, is slightly confusing:

"The BBC has provided on the UK digital satellite service all of the BBC One and BBC Two regional variations, which provides local news inserts and (outside England) regional presentation."

Because the opening is in the past tense, it is difficult to tell if these services are still offered on satellite.

On the plus side, the map is really useful, and most of the content is encyclopedic. Therefore, I've put it on hold to see whether any improvements can be made. Bob talk 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the refernces as required. ••Briantist•• talk 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this wasn't in my original analysis, but looking through the references, I think there is some scope to add a little about the background of this being made available to non-Sky card users in 2006, to cover all facets of the topic. Other than that, it's quite good now. I slightly re-wrote the opening sentence to make it clearer. Bob talk 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Informal GA review

This being my first GA review I would prefer just to list my comments rather than close the candidacy and then be told I'm interpreting the GA requirements incorrectly. Given the relatively minor problems I think I would choose to hold the nomination.

1. Well written: Indifferent also -- No "serious violations" of MOS, however: "Non-Sky Digital satellite users can find the Astra 2D tuning parameters here Lyngsat: Eurobird 1 & Astra 2A/2B/2D at 28.2°E." should be in external links in my opinion, or else converted to note format. Several examples of the first instance of words/phrases not being linked, rather second occurences, e.g. BBC 2W. Reference 2 is incorrectly formatted. Also as it stands "BBC regional news and satellite channel numbers" is a totally extraneous heading, sections 2 and 3 should be subheadings of it:

1 BBC regional news and satellite channel numbers

1.1 BBC One

1.1.1 England

1.1.2 Rest of UK

1.1.3 Elsewhere

1.2 BBC Two

2 References

3 See also

1. Factually accurate: I have one concern. The 2nd para says ex-subscribers automatically receive the "correct" regional programmes. However the BBC states that a digibox without a viewing card or an inactive one will automatically show BBC London and BBC Two England.[2]
2. Broad: Pass If this was a FAC I would push for a "why BBC did this" section, but of course it isn't.
3. Neutrally written: Pass
4. Stable: Pass
5. Well-referenced: Pass
6. Images: Pass Mark83 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've just realised my first major mistake - it's too soon to review it again! Sorry. -- Mark83 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine - it's always good to get a second opinion, and you've brought up some good points for improvement. Bob talk 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just on the 'Factually accurate' bit. You only get 'London' if you have no card. An expired subscription card still select the correct region, so it's Factually accurate. ••Briantist•• talk 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix the outline too. ••Briantist•• talk 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the accuracy bit. I'll defer to your obviously greater knowledge of the subject, however a reference would be good (not because I doubt you at all, but because that BBC reference does state otherwise). Mark83 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the article reflects the source. An "inactive" card is one that has been diabled, not one that has an expired subscription or a Freesat card. ••Briantist•• talk 07:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

The article now appears to meet all of the good article criteria, and I've sorted one or two minor issues identified by Mark83. To improve the article further, it would perhaps be nice to have a little more history of the service. Well done. Bob talk 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:BBC UK regional TV on satellite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section does not conform to WP:LEAD; it contains unique information rather than being a summary of the article. "BBC regional news and satellite channel numbers" contains much useful information, but Wikipedia is not a directory. The "History" section should have gone on top.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is a fair amount of references, but they are almost entirely self-referential, which could be detrimental to the article's reliability.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)