Strictly speaking, this probably doesn't fall within our scope, but it's a documentary about a military operation (Operation Flavius, which has just been through ACR and is now at FAC), and given the controversial nature of the subject matter, I'd really appreciate some feedback before I take it to FAC. This one's a bit shorter than Flavius, so it shouldn't take too long to read. The documentary is on YouTube in case anybody wants to watch it; it shouldn't take more than about five seconds to find it, but I won't link it because it's probably a copyvio! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Support: I had a go at copy editing the article. These are my edits: . Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Structure: I don't review that many media articles but this seems to follow a logical, linear sequence.
Prose/content: I haven't read a WP article in a while that needed less copyediting, so well done! Just a couple of outstanding points:
"two or three time at point-blank range" -- Is "time" the actual quote or is it a typo (for "times")? If part of the quote, you may want a sic in there...
With a slightly altered rationale, Howe again attempted to prevent the programme's broadcast on the day it was due to be shown -- Do we know exactly what the "slightly altered" rationale was, or did I miss it?
Image licensing looks good.
I have to admit I'm not a fan of referring to citations as "specific" references and cited sources as "general" references but if you've generally found it to be accepted, so be it. Other than that, referencing looks thorough, sources reliable, and a cursory check revealed no obvious formatting issues.
Thanks very much, Ian. I don't write many media articles, so I welcome all input! I fixed the typo. The altered rationale was a bit complicated, but essentially was that Howe believed DotR would contaminate witness evidence (as opposed to it being inherently prejudicial to the inquest). I didn't include the detail because I didn't think it was that significant, and because the second attempt seemed to be essentially one last role of the dice, but I can if you think it's worthwhile. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't affect my support here but I suppose as it is it does leave one hanging -- do you think something like With a slightly altered rationale--that the documentary would contaminate witness evidence--Howe again attempted to prevent the programme's broadcast on the day it was due to be shown would be okay? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
really well written article, interesting topic, nice to read a media article on a military subject for a change
suggest the success of Proatta's libel suits be mentioned in the lead
there is tension between the last sentence of the first para of the lead and the last sentence of the third para of the lead, you've already established the controversy and notability in the first sentence, but the two mentions of the Act makes it a little repetitive
I know people can read Op Flavius for the full story, but you might like to link the IRA ASU members in the Gibraltar shooting section
Treacy only appears in the Broadcast section, when was she located etc? She seems quite important, as she was the one that saw Savage shot while he was running away
I've tried not to go into huge detail in the investigation section to avoid duplication between it and the broadcast section, but if you think Treacy needs more background, I can look at adding something.
I just found that when her name appeared, my first thought was "where did this sheila pop up from?" Perhaps a mention that she was located (when?) and said she (saw ?). Maybe I'm being pedantic...
No probs, a pleasure to review an article as well written as this one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
"Thames lost its franchise": Non-Brits might not get that this means "lost its license to broadcast".
"Thames lost its franchise": I'm not sure if you need to say this twice in the lead.
"decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock".": Some people say :) that "many people believed" is sort of prohibited per WP:WORDS; I don't agree, but I think there probably ought to be a punchier way to conclude the lead section, something that demonstrates that the government's actions had a chilling effect that kept the public from seeing other shows with similar information. (There's also an argument that mindreading the government's "anger" plays into their position. They probably claimed that their motives were pure, but if the question is the ability of journalists to report accurately on the actions of a government without being punished, then what's relevant is whether the government's actions effectively stopped other programs on the same subject matter from being aired, and according to your sources, they did.) Here are two examples, from your next-to-last paragraph: "Two other programmes were made about the Gibraltar shootings for British television, both by the BBC. BBC Northern Ireland produced an episode of Spotlight which arrived at similar findings to those of This Week; Howe attempted to have the programme delayed, using the same rationale with which he requested "Death on the Rock" be postponed. The programme was eventually broadcast, but restricted to Northern Ireland. The BBC's flagship current affairs series Panorama made a programme about the SAS and its role in the Troubles to coincide with the end of the end of the Gibraltar inquest; it was postponed by BBC executives in the wake of the controversy surrounding "Death on the Rock"."
"the first such inquiry into a single television programme": appears twice in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.