Talk:BBC News/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I can see multiple issues with this from just a quick glance. Another reviewer could easily quick fail this. However, I'm not that kind of reviewer. I'm sorry if the following sounds like a list of problems, but it;s difficult to fix issues you;re not aware of.


 * My gravest concern is the images. They are almost all non free and I'm sure that many of them violate at least one of the Non Free Content Criteria. The number of these images may need to be slashed so we're left with only the images that significantly contribute to the reader's understanding.
 * The lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD. It's currently ~130 words but the article as a whole is ~6,000. it should provide a concise summary of the article's contents
 * You don't need 2 hatnotes- the could be combined into one or the reader directed to the dab
 * Vast chunks of the article lack any references whatsoever. At minimum, you should be looking at one ref per paragraph and for every controversial fact or direct quote
 * Comment on above note: I don't think this is an issue anymore. I added some more references as well
 * The citations almost all lack information on work, author, publisher and publication date

Although it doesn't meet the GA criteria as it is, I'm happy to leave this review open for as long as it takes to bring it up to scratch provided that there is an effort to address my concerns. I'll watchlist this page and the article, but I canbe reached on my talk page or by email if you want my attention and I missed the edit here. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the article and complete your review. The issues you've raised will be worked on to help get this article to GA status. I'll start with the images - there's a few free images that could be used in place of the fair use. The reason the fair use images are there is that they illustrate the history of BBC News, though looking at it I think they could be used in their respective linked-to articles. Cloudbound (the new name for Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the images and I think may of them are useful. Unfortunately WP disagrees with me. I'd be happy if you left the ones that genuinely help the reader's understanding, but the NFCC say we have to keep them to a minimum. Let me know if you need anything from me (I'm more than happy to help if I can), otherwise I'll check back in a day or two. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a brief look at this article while waiting for my own Media and Journalism article to be GA reviewed, and agree that sourcing is a major issue in this article. There isn't a single reference in the section BBC_News, and there are a dozen or more additional paragraphs without any citations. This is a very worthy topic, though, and IMO it shouldn't be quick-failed unless work improving it stops. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I much prefer to leave an article on hold for a long time to get it to GA status than to quick fail it. This is my 21st review and I've never failed one yet. I don;t intend to start here, especially since the topic undoubtedly is worthy. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already changed many of the images in favour of freely available ones, and have just expanded the lead section and added an infobox. Next step really is finding additional citations. Cloudbound (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is progress being made here on both sides? It's been almost a month since any comments. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While I realise that some progress has been made since I initiated the review, I'm afraid I don't feel this could be brought up to GA standards in a reasonable time frame and so I feel I have no choice but to fail it. That said, at least you can work on the issues at leisure without having the pressure of a GAN and renominate it when it's ready. I'd be happy to offer my services as a reviewer again when this has been improved and I'd be happy to provide you with an informal review if towards eventual GA status to keep you focused if you want, but, much as I would like to I can't leave the review open indefinitely. My talk page is always open if you want any help or advice and I'll keep it on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)