Talk:C-SPAN/Archive 3

Revisions based on peer review feedback
Back in late April, I initiated a peer review of this article. My goal was to receive feedback from uninvolved editors and prepare the article for submission at Feature article review, and so Imzadi1979 and Groupuscule have done.

Over the last several weeks I have worked from their suggestions to prepare a series of updates to the article. Not many are significant by themselves, however in totality they may well be. Editors familiar with the page will know that I am a paid consultant to C-SPAN, so I think it is best that I refrain from making any direct edits to this article. With this message, I'd like to ask someone else to consider doing just that.

To assist in this process, I have added the current C-SPAN markup to my user space and have implemented all changes there. For those who are interested, please see the draft at: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_(2013_revision). Below I will provide notes on the changes I made in response to the specific feedback I received.

Imzadi1979's feedback
Imzadi's feedback focused on the citations in the article. In response to his suggestions I have made the changes in the following diff:. Details in collapsed box following:

Groupuscule's feedback
Groupuscule's feedback addressed the content of the article. In response to his suggestions I have made the changes that can be seen in the following diff:. Here also, extensive details in collapsed box following:

Other updates
In addition to the requested updates, while preparing this draft, other issues came to my attention or were brought to it by C-SPAN. Here are the other changes I've made, which you can see in this diff:. As above, detailed discussion follows:

Thank you so much to anyone who takes the time to read through this. I hope you'll take a few minutes to look at the updated draft in my user space and consider helping me improve this article by replacing the current article's markup with this revised version (while removing the tag + re-enabling categories). Though this message is long, I think you'll find that the changes I have made to the article are actually quite simple, though they are many. For the sake of transparency I wanted to make it very clear what I have changes I have made, hence the length.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions about these notes or my draft. Also, if you see anything in my draft you'd like changed, please feel free to make edits to the draft directly. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Approvals

 * I checked and the changes made to the references based on Imzadi's peer review are fine. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked and the changes made to the article based on Groupuscule's peer review are also fine. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also checked the changes made based on C-SPAN feedback and found them to be fine with one exception. A state funeral is at most a few hours long, but coverage of the deceased lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda may encompass a few days, so reducing the sentences on coverage to just "C-SPAN also covers funerals of former presidents and other notable individuals." seems a bit too brief to me (I am fine with omitting specific names of those whose funerals were covered). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the funeral sentence diff Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now copied the user space version to the actual article. I will try to take a look at it for more suggestions before a possible FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ruhrfisch! I really appreciate you taking the time to review the diffs and update the live version of the article. Likewise, your revision to include "lying in state" works for me. I'm planning on submitting the draft early next week for FAC, so if you wanted to look through the article and make any other changes in the next few days, please do! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel like WWB has done a good job of responding to my questions and concerns, and I think the article is looking great. I wish there were more sources out there to analyze bias and diversity on C-SPAN, but their existence isn't readily apparent. The article does a good job of reflecting the available literature base. Sorry for the delayed response. groupuscule (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to HD made it unavailable on TV to me
Is the analog version still available? If not I could understand more readily why Time Warner chose to deny me as a lowest tier customer in Buffalo, NY any of the 3 networks as of 2012.1archie99 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question is beyond the scope of this talk page. You might try http://www.c-span.org/ which streams much of the content. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made my question here because C-Span did not care that their listing for my zip code had the old channel listed; TW now carries sports on that channel. C-Span's reply to my e-mail more or less told me to chew rocks.1archie99 (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am sorry for your cable problems, this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article. I would contact Time Warner for more information (as they control what comes into your tv, not C-SPAN or Wikipedia), but my guess is that the world of analog is going away quickly in most parts of the US. As I said, in theory you can watch some stuff online. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)