Talk:BBC/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Result: Delisted. The article has too many issues to be considered a Good Article at this time. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with unsourced information, as evidenced by the citation needed templates. The Finance section is out-of-date. The layout is bloated and difficult to navigate. The prose needs serious attention and there are many single-sentence paragraphs and external links (within the article itself). The lead is huge, even for such a big article. There's an excessive amount of images. Several sections, like Radio, Corporation, and Finance, are full of lists that could be better expressed as prose. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: It is with a slightly heavy heart that I have to agree that this article is no longer a good article. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that such articles with such important ramifications to various political groups can never be good. Criteria:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: I have repeatedly raised serious concerns about referencing on the BBC articles. On this article. As stated by User talk:Vantine84 there are a number of sections that are out of date and/or with citations needed. However, of equal concern are the number of references that I would not really consider to "reliable". Whilst, before I get comments, tabloids such as the Mail, Evening Standard et al are entitled to their opinions and might be used as comment solely about their opinions about the BBC, some of the articles that have used often bare little resemblance to reality. It is important to remember that here in the UK, Beeb-bashing is somewhat of a national sport, and that some newspaper outlets (Doesn't really apply to Mail and ES -they just want the BBC to return to a 1950s England that IMHO never existed) have a vested interest in kicking the BBC. Of even more concern is the references that come from sources allied to what I would term extremist opinion, where distorted UK tabloid articles are often taken and then distorted even further.

5. Stability: The article is not stable. Particularly sections relating to controversy and bias. There is a large issue with people (often anon users or single issue editors) coming and adding their 2 pence/cents on their personal hobby-horse (see also GA criteria #4) to this article, BBC News, Criticisms of the BBC, BBC Controversies and any other debatedly half way relevant articles such as those about employees and programmes. I don't think a lot of the stuff that appears on criticisms is particularly relevant to the main BBC page, particularly when you consider some of the real issues in the past (see also GA Criteria #3). Pit-yacker (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: No way this article could qualify for a GA in this year (I wonder how the GA criteria was enforced back before 2006...) looking at all the unsourced info/"citation needed" etc. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Philcha (talk)[edit]

NB all these are off the top, without any research. My only only qualification is that as a Brit I've lived with the BBC for decades.

Even if there are no disagreemnts that would delay improving the article, I think there's too much work to complete in a month. Hence I would delist the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

Too much on "internals", including organisation structure, financing, office locations, etc.
Not enough on what makes the BBC notable in the real-world sense, i.e. interesting to readers - its programmes and related products such as DVDs. I'd be looking for awards and for cases where it pioneered topics, genres, methods of presentation, etc. I'd also look for more on its world-wide reputation historically and at present. Comments by non-British sources would be particularly valuable, although the article would have to watch out for the sources' POVs.
The "Controversies" & "Allegations of bias" sections cover several issues, but I'm unable to assess their completeness without research.
I've noticed nothing in the article about allegations of political pressure on the BCC or of self-censorship.
The BBC as a topic is so huge that a lot of thought is needed about whether each sub-topic should be covered in detail here or in subordinate articles which this one summarises - see WP:SUMMARY. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

I'd be inclined to start with an overview of its current products and services, as these are what makes the BBC notable in the real-world sense. It may be appropriate to include brief notes on the origin of each.
I think the sections "Allegations of bias" and "Controversies" should be combined under the top-level heading "Controversies". I can't suggest sub-sections as I don't know what research will find.
I know this is heretical, but I'd place the history later - my principle is first show why the BBC is notable and then readers will be more interested in how its reached this position.

References[edit]

There are a lot of statements that need refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

No point in commenting on this now, as my previous comment simply major changes. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Does not go anywhere near summarising the main content.
Over 1/3 of it is about the BBC's nicknames, which are not covered in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I agreee with almost all of the comments above; this article needs a lot of work to meet the GA criteria in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]