Talk:Crimewatch/Archive 1

Archive 1

These are an archive of the discussions from when the article was located at Crimewatch UK

"inviting viewers to be armchair detectives"

I don't like that line. It's not a "who dunnit", and people aren't presented with the evidence. They are usually just given a little background and asked to phone in if they were there, or if they've seen someone. It doesn't require any amount of detective work

Timb0h 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Ross leaving / Percentage of solved cases

Nick Ross announced on the BBC web site he would be stepping down from the show. In passing, he quoted a one in five solution rate, not one in three as mentioned in the text. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6767463.stm Rob Burbidge 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleven months on and the article still says a third are solved! No citation stated, whereas you have cited a source. Why was it never changed!?! Digifiend (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations much needed

There are a dozen places in this article, as it stands, that need citation from someplace else than the BBC, which produced the program. (What seem to be) facts are mixed with a whole range of speculative material, and what is apparently self-advertising. The peacock language, such as "was for so long strongly identified", "insistent on a strong public service remit" to "few programmes in which the BBC do not 'credit squeeze'" emphasizes that the article is not being careful to stick with verifiable facts.

67.169.126.106 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true though, Crimewatch doesn't credit squeeze. A look at any past episode would prove that. Digifiend (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1