Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death on the Rock/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2014 (diff).

Death on the Rock

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Following on from my success with Operation Flavius, which passed FAC a few weeks ago, I now bring forward this article, on the documentary that ensured the controversy surrounding the SAS' actions in Gibraltar in March 1988 wouldn't die. It caused outrage in the government, which (arguably) led to a total reform of the broadcasting system and the press accused it of "trial by television" and attempted to discredit its witnesses. All in all, possibly the most written-about 44 minutes in British television history. As ever, all constructive comments are very welcome. Please note that I might become unavailable at short ntoice due to helath issues, so if I don't respond quickly, please bear with me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
 * A few copyediting comments.
 * "Thames lost its franchise": Non-Brits might not get that this means "lost its license to broadcast".
 * "lost its license to broadcast" isn't quit accurate; Thames was no longer the company making and commissioning content to be shown on ITV. I'm not sure how best to rephrase this. Perhaps a few other Brits might want to chime in?
 * "Thames lost its franchise" is perfectably understandable to this Brit. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But to non-Brits? Some might actually read this article. It needs a little explaining, and is there nothing to link to? Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Thames lost its franchise": I'm not sure if you need to say this twice in the lead.
 * It's an important fact—important enough to be included in the first paragraph (which is the very high level summary) and at the end of the lead. I'm not sure there's any way round saying it twice.
 * "decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock".": Some people say :) that "many people believed" is sort of prohibited per WP:WORDS; I don't agree, but I think there probably ought to be a punchier way to conclude the lead section, something that demonstrates that the government's actions had a chilling effect that kept the public from seeing other shows with similar information. (There's also an argument that mindreading the government's "anger" plays into their position. They probably claimed that their motives were pure, but if the question is the ability of journalists to report accurately on the actions of a government without being punished, then what's relevant is whether the government's actions effectively stopped other programs on the same subject matter from being aired, and according to your sources, they did.) Here are two examples, from your next-to-last paragraph: "Two other programmes were made about the Gibraltar shootings for British television, both by the BBC. BBC Northern Ireland produced an episode of Spotlight which arrived at similar findings to those of This Week; Howe attempted to have the programme delayed, using the same rationale with which he requested "Death on the Rock" be postponed. The programme was eventually broadcast, but restricted to Northern Ireland. The BBC's flagship current affairs series Panorama made a programme about the SAS and its role in the Troubles to coincide with the end of the end of the Gibraltar inquest; it was postponed by BBC executives in the wake of the controversy surrounding "Death on the Rock"."
 * From what I gather, the consensus of public opinion was that Thaggy personally gave Thames a good handbagging, but he sources just say "many people believe" or "it was widely believed" or some variation thereof. The sources don't dwell much on the BBC documentaries, and it's worth remembering that the Beeb is effectively a state broadcaster, so it has a shorter leash for investigating the government than ITV.
 * "the first such inquiry into a single television programme": appears twice in the lead (with slightly different words). - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-worded the second instance t make it a little less repetitive. See what you think. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Don't need quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
 * Fixed number of columns in reflist is deprecated in favour of column width
 * Be consistent in whether short cites include commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All fixed, I think. Thanks, Nikki. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I reviewed this article for MILHIST A-Class, and have reviewed all subsequent edits.
 * My major issue is with the lead, which doesn't flow at all well. Eg "The report largely vindicated "Death on the Rock", and found that it had, for the most part, accurately presented the evidence of its witnesses. Two years after the report, Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished." and "Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990—decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock"." I consider that the initial para looks like it was the original lead, and the rest feels tacked on. I suggest the lead, after establishing notability (which it does well in the first sentence), should just reflect the chronology, rather than repeat itself about the inquiry, the franchise etc. I know this point was made at ACR as well as above, and I think it really needs a good hard look.
 * One point brought up in the ACR was that Treacy only appears in the Broadcast section. I suggest she should be identified by name in the sentence "one who claimed to have seen the soldiers shooting Savage in the back without warning and continuing to shoot him while he was on the ground" The other witness is identified by name, so no reason not to identify her as well at that point.
 * That's it for me, otherwise I consider it meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peacemaker. I've added a mention Treacy; leave the lead issue with me. I'll be offline for the rest of the week, but I'll try to get to it next week. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment -- more of a placeholder at the moment, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to check additions made since then, but I might wait for any edits in response to PM's suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Harry, looks like you're around again, if you return to this review and respond to outstanding comments I'll be happy to add my tuppence worth as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. I'll get to this in the next few days, I promise—I am sort of around, but I'm dealing with a lot of Wikimania stuff which is occupying every waking moment and a few more besides at the moment! It should calm down next week, at least for a few days. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've completed my review; the article is very well-written and clear. There are a couple of minor comments below, but my main concern is the lead structure. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Two years after the report, Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished": I agree with the comment above that this doesn't need to be said twice in the lead. I'd remove the first statement; the second one provides context, and in the summary form that a lead provides I think it's more than enough to say it at the end of the lead.
 * "while tabloid newspapers accused it of sensationalism": "it" refers to the documentary, but it seems odd to me to have the documentary accused of something; it would more naturally be the producers of the documentary. How about "tabloid newspapers branded it as sensationalist"?  Or "denounced", or "attacked"?
 * Having gone through the lead a couple of times, I think the problem is that the first paragraph of the lead is being made to serve as a lead within the lead -- it summarizes some information re-presented later in the lead. I can see that this would require quite a bit of surgery on the lead's first paragraph, so before I go further, perhaps I should ask if there is a precedent for this sort of lead structure?  It's not something I've seen before, but perhaps I just haven't run into it.
 * "were witnessed to park a car in a car park in Gibraltar, which was used": how about "were witnessed parking a car"? And I'd suggest "...Gibraltar; the car park was used" to avoid any momentary parsing of "which" as referring to "Gibraltar".
 * "he confirmed Styles' contribution to the documentary that the IRA had not been known to use a remote-detonated bomb without a direct line of sight to their target": I think a colon after "documentary" is necessary.
 * "The report dismissed this concern, believing that...": the report didn't believe anything; the authors of the report did. You use "the report considered" and "the report asserted", which I think are OK, but this seems a step too far to me.  How about making it "The report dismissed this concern on the grounds that..."?
 * A minor point: was the Panorama programme eventually aired?

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:Geoffrey_Howe.jpg: is there an OTRS number or something to support the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry Harry, I was originally planning to recuse from my regular duties and review this myself but it looks like you've too much on your plate to address the outstanding comments already here, so best I keep the delegate hat on and put this one to bed until you have more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.