Wikipedia:Peer review/BBC World News/archive1

BBC World
I was hoping that following the amount of time and effort put in since the last peer review of the BBC World article, that new ideas and suggestions could be put forward. THank you to all participants. Wikiwoohoo 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous review from December 2005

This article seems to be coming along nicely, but it would be great for other users to help out and point out what is missing and/or needs improving. Thanks.Wikiwoohoo 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments: Has lots of potential. — Wackymacs 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Where is the History section? Expand the History section into good long paragraphs.
 * 2) Sectioning is confusing and illogical - no need for 'Censorships' subsection - It should follow a convention such as History -> Programmes -> Criticism -> Influence -> See also -> References -> External links, or something along those lines. - This still needs work.
 * 3) Needs a references section, what sources were used to write the info in the article? The references are disappointing.
 * 4) How is it different to the BBC News, BBC One, BBC Two and BBC Three channels? - This still needs to be mentioned.
 * 5) Missing pictures of a broadcast (the studio, a presenter, etc)
 * 6) Is it worth mentioning any notable presenters, news readers, etc who have been on BBC World?
 * 7) Does BBC World work both in Television and in Radio and the Internet? Accessibility should be mentioned, with methods of viewing it
 * 8) Explaining how it is available would be useful with lots of detail
 * 9) The language in the 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' section is terrible.
 * 10) I suggest you rename the section 'Newsworthiness, bias and propaganda' to 'Criticism' or 'Concerns'
 * 11) An infobox like the one at BBC Radio Five Live could be a nice addition
 * 12) 'Programming' section could be expanded, its currently lacking info
 * 13) The lead needs improving to two concise and summarized paragraphs rather than choppy short sentences - Still needs to be done.
 * 14) I found quite a bit of info on  that isn't in the wikipedia article
 * 15) You need to turn the inline html references into footnotes. See Footnote.
 * 16) The images are all fair use, so they need fair use rationales to along with them.
 * Has it got any digital television options accessible with the famous red button? - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Reputation and Criticisms" section is a little rocky. The second sentence wanders, and in the third sentence, it would make things clearer to mention that the hoaxer was from The Yes Men and pretending to be from Dow Chemical. Finally, the end of the "censorships" section is unsatisfying.  How are the details unclear?  Why are they unclear?  If you can't find any more information than what's stated, it might be preferable to end the sentence after the word Pakistan.  Katsam