Wikipedia:Peer review/C-SPAN/archive1

C-SPAN

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking it through the FA process very soon, and I would like a third party to review it for any issues I may have missed. Because I work on a consulting basis with C-SPAN, and because I wish to follow Jimbo's "bright line" advice for editors with a paid COI, I should probably not make any direct edits here (I have not directly edited this article since late 2011). If you post a suggestion here, I can always seek another editor to help implement such changes, if you the reviewing editor would prefer not. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979

A couple of brief comments in skimming the article:

This article should use the American-style date format, namely Month DD, YYYY, and not DD Month YYYY. The topic is an American TV network after all.
Citations to newspaper articles should include page numbers where possible unless an online edition is being cited. Even in the case of articles with URLs given in the footnotes, I personally prefer to locate the page number information as frequently as possible to allow readers the choice of verifying the information with either the print or online editions as desired.
When the newspaper's name does not include the city of publication (or university in the case of a student paper), the location should be provided to aid readers seeking out those sources for potential verification.
There is some inconsistency in citations whether or not the website title is rendered c-span.org or C-SPAN.org and whether or not C-SPAN is listed as a publisher. Pick a style and use it consistently, please.
Footnote 24 has the newspaper's name out of italics, and what I assume is the name of a regular column/feature in italics. {{cite news}} has a |department= parameter for such regular column/feature names, and The Wall Street Journal would then be the |work=. (Also note that the paper's name does include The in the title; please check other paper names for consistency and accuracy on this matter.)
Footnote 26 has a few words missing in the title... "C-SPAN's Letter to Speaker of House Representatives" probably should be: "C-SPAN's Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives" (additions in italics)? I would also prefer if |format=PDF were included as not all readers' browsers will display the PDF icon for various reasons, so a more explicit indication of that format would be wise.
Footnote 42 has "The Associated Press" as a work, when it is not. That should be inserted into the |agency= field of the template, and note that the AP doesn't include the The in their name. Footnote 72 has the same issue, but it correctly uses the wire service's same.
Footnote 55 is showing up with an error on my screen; if there isn't a URL defined for a source then there is no need to define |accessdate=. At the moment, this may be one of the error conditions that does not display by default, but I am seeing it because I have the hidden error conditions visible. In the future though, this will likely be revealed to all editors and readers, so it should be fixed. Ditto footnotes 61 and 65. Either the access date is removed or a URL needs to be added.
Footnotes 119–122 incorrectly give either amazon.com or Google Books credit as the work. If you're citing the actual books, please cite the actual authors and publishers of these works, not a reseller or electronic delivery service.

While citation formatting is a minor part of the presentation of the article compared to the actual information in the article, accuracy and consistent formatting goes a long way toward giving a reader a polished product. Please work with someone to update these issues before you nominate the article at FAC, or they're liable to be repeated there, potentially under an oppose !vote.

Comments by groupuscule

Thanks for acknowledging your COI and requesting peer review.

The first intro paragraph seems factual and neutral but it's currently a little difficult to read. Maybe the sentences are a little long.
End of second paragraph does read as a little promotional (e.g., describing fee as "small") though I would agree that 'C-SPAN is not funded by government or politicians' is a sufficiently important fact to include in the lead.
Digital links for any more of these sources? It's difficult to evaluate fidelity to the source without knowing how to access it. Relatedly, I've never seen routine TV broadcast cited as a source for a Wikipedia article. Is TV a reliable source? (Commentary, not C-SPAN ;-) ) Is this a verifiable claim if verification requires access to Fox News tapes from 2004?
Great picture of C-SPAN2 launch in 1986.
Section on "organization and operations" is surprisingly small. Any more info out there? Budget? Dollars? Consultants? (We know they hire at least one!) PR?
Glad this FAIR study is discussed by the article. Any updates since 2005? Also the URL seems to have died. (More info) The exclusion of third party voices seems like a major issue that's not currently mentioned. (This search suggests possible recent improvements in that field.)
"Must-carry" section still a little unclear. Were there changes in the must-carry rules that allowed providers to drop C-SPAN?

Looking through a Google News search suggests some other issues that might be in the article:

C-SPAN: Electronic Sunshine (by the way, what's the status of recording candidates now?)
C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd
"C-SPAN Barred From Covering Obama's First Gridiron"
C-SPAN Squelches Dodd's D-SPAN
C-SPAN: Don't Blame Us For Not Airing GOP Revolt

... and some articles, not behind paywalls, that might be used to source (and expand) existing claims:

... and, yeah, plenty more, just go ahead and look at that search.

On a side note—and I know the tide seems to be against it—using citation templates really increases the load time of the article and makes it difficult for people with slow connections to access. Simple handmade citations solve this problem as well as some of those listed above. Though I know it's a huge pain in the neck to go back and redo, and I certainly wouldn't demand something like that before "approving" an article or whatever.

OK, that's it for now. In general, a good article, well written and well sourced.