Talk:BBC review

BBC Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Merge from Creative future[edit]

I don't have any objections if you wish to merge the two articles, although personally I feel that 'Creative Future' is a better and more useful heading - as the term is used so often in the press nowadays. Most of the info about 'Creative Future' was taken from the BBC Press Office - but I don't believe a word of it.

Here is an excerpt from my blog:

BBC 'Creative Future' a creative 'con trick'

Mark Thompson announced his 'vision' of things to come on 25 April 2006. It is known as 'Creative Future' and it's a kind of umbrella term which seems to enable BBC management to do whatever they like. Damson88 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on the story but as of now the article Creative future seems about a biased as an article could be. Merge them: strip away the POV and there'll not be much left to merge. As for what the title should be ... I say I'm not up on things but the title Creative Future? This sounds about as biased as the the article itself (the one under that title). There's been no objection in two months. I'm merging the two articles. The merge will consist of copying and pasting the quote: this is the only non-biased part of the article (though added, I'm sure, with baised intent; it's a quote though, so tells us more of the mastermind than of his dubious scheme). As for Creative Future's being more useful: it's useless to me. I don't live in the UK nor am I from there. Half a dozen years down the track this'll all have blown over and my guess is that even the Brits & N. Irish will have forgotten about it. BBC Review is more descriptive to me (no, not very but a whole lot more). In a few years it may be more descriptive to those it effects. Jimp 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]