Wikipedia:Peer review/Granada Television/archive1

Granada Television

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get it to GA status. Currently there are 114 references, most are from reliable sources. I'm just looking for feedback on what could be done to get the article to GA status.

I feel the article Granada Television is worthy of GA and FA because of its notability. It is arguably ITV's most successful franchisee and the only one which actually survived in its original form until 2004.

Thanks, Stevo1000 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I am not going to comment much about prose because the following issues are more striking and would need resolution (the first several would be reasons for immediate opposes at FAC).

• Despite 114 references, much of the content is still not cited to any sources;phrases such as "Prolific playwright" and "Gained national fame" do need citing, as well as the statistics and dates.
• "Most are from reliable sources" would not cut it at FAC; all have to be reliable (though their quality can vary). Just as examples, what makes www.teletronic.co.uk and www.manchester2002-uk.com, both self-published sites, reliable sources per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches?

I will add citations from the The Rise and Fall of ITV and Persona Granada books for references that are questionable.

• "Meet The People - Launch Night from 1956" at TVArk is a dead link (expired video); furthermore, I am concerned over the status of TVArk per WP:LINKVIO. It claims to be a museum for television footage, but as far as we can tell, they are hosting the clips without Granada's permission (nowhere do they state they have asked for permission; they only ask that if the copyright owner feels offended, they will take down the clip on request).[1] As a non-profit site, they might be excused for doing so, particularly if the courts agree with the site's claim that its actions are allowed under section 30 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, but this has yet to be tested. It would have been a different matter if the clips are stored alongside material that discusses the contents or the company (thus fair use in exposition) but this does not seem so (the site is simply a host of clips).
• Several violations of WP:NFCC regarding the use of non-free images such as File:Baron Bernstein.jpg, File:Granada1992.png, File:Granada ITV1.jpg, specifically criterion 8. The content of these images are not critically discussed in the text; i.e. the appearance of Bernstein, the designs of the logos. The reader does not require these images to understand the article.
• File:Itvplc formation.png would require on its page the source to verify that the companies stated were indeed acquired as shown.

Better to omit the diagram in this case.

• "Criticism and controversy" is not a good section header; for a long-running television broadcaster, it would have received accolades as well and a more neutral "Reception and reactions" section would be in line with WP:NPOV.

Much praise and accolade is given to Granada (backed up by solid refs) in the main body of the text i.e. it is the only one of the original four ITA franchisees from 1954 that survived as a franchise holder into the 21st century and is regarded as ITV's most successful franchise.[2][3][4][5] Granada is also the only ITV franchisee to have never lost a franchise round and is the last franchise to survive in its independent form prior to the formation of ITV plc in 2004.[6] Since 2004, the Granada license is now accredited to ITV Broadcasting Ltd. The criticism section offsets this praises and helps to create a balanced article rather than giving it a self-aggrandizing tone. I've changed the section to "Reception and criticism".

• Per MOS:HEAD, use "sentence case", not "title case" (inherited from Article names). Why is there "Northern Style" and "On-Screen Identity"?
• There are quite a few single- or two-sentence paragraphs; these are not aesthetic and could be choppy in readings. Try to gather sentences into thematic paragraphs.

Still need a bit of tidying up structurally I know.

• The Noted staff section has a list of people. Their achievements (and hence why they are "noted"), however, are not stated, e.g. MacDonald and Harries. Formatting the list in a "Person — Incomplete sentence. Incomplete sentence." is just not done in my books. I would suggest rephrasing the entire bit to be complete sentences, e.g. "John Birt, Baron Birt, started his television career at Granada in 1966 as a researcher for World in Action before leaving in 1971. He was BBC's Director-General from 1992 to 2000." (Note that this entry in the article is unsourced).

I might break up that list and put its contents into words.

The structure of the article seems sound to me but the above should be taken care before looking to improve the prose. Jappalang (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)