Talk:Sky News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Sky News was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 2, 2007
See also Talk:Sky News/Archive1

Contents

[edit] New Schedule

I removed the following section because it appears to be pure speculation.

With the return of Andrew Wilson to Sky Centre, it is rumoured that a new schedule will be devised, taking effect around mi-August when it's expected that several staff including Lorna Dunkley (weekend presenter) will go off on maternity leave.

06.00 - Sunrise with Eamonn Holmes

09.00 - Sky News Today with Martin Stanford and Julie Etchingham

12.00 - Lunchtime Live with Kay Burley

14.00 - TBA with Andrew Wilson and Anna Jones

17.00 - Live at 5 with Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting

20.00 - TBA with Adam Boulton

21.00 - Sky News Tonight with Colin Brazier and TBA

00.00 - Sky News with Lukwesa Burak ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Scheudles ARE NOT ALLOWED, please see WP:NOT  BRIANTIST  (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we please also make sure that we get simple details correct; the channel started on the 5th of February.User:Sn2005 (talk)

[edit] Updates and reformat

I've done lots of reworking of the article, which has included providing references for the claims and adding a few more quotes from Rupert and the like, and I hope it's more neutral now. I have removed most of the 'guesswork' which comprised this article before.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I haven't got anything to support the Awards section, please add these if you have them!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) -> if you're looking for a list of awards, try http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/AboutUs/awards.asp though I don't know if that counts as a good source. ~Griffindd

Also, I have moved the rather indiscriminate list of presenters and correspondents to a separate page.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work - looks fantastic. TBH I dont think its far off of GA status now - if we are going to submit it two things which will certainly come up are the lead see WP:Lead which is much too short, and the lack of references in the article. There isnt much work to do though I dont think, and in my experience, we should be there quite soon.--Flymeoutofhere 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've sorted almost all the references now. I'll have a look at the intro.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the intro now works for WP:Lead  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The section headings used level 1 (=) -- I've corrected the, Also, it should not pass GA with the Logos gallery: far too many non-free images without critical context. The JPStalk to me 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
OK-Great - we need to try to find citations where the citation needed tags are...and probably therefore get some licenses on those logos--Flymeoutofhere 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this enough commentary?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me...lets see what happens with the GA.--Flymeoutofhere 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Fail Several {{fact}} templates throughout
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail I've removed a fair use gallery (see WP:FAIR) and several images do not have fair use rationales (Template:Fair use rationale is useful).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. Kindest Regards
The Sunshine Man 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reception

I just wanted to check something here. The article says that it cannot be made available in America as Sky does not own the international rights for the programming, especially sports programming. I find this a bit odd as Sky News does not generally show sports events except within regular new bulletins and if they didn't own the "international rights," how would they be able to show it in other countries, as they are not American rights but international rights. Also, they occasionally show Sky News at Ten in America on cable. --Sebastian Cartwright 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sky News New Colourscheme.jpg

Image:Sky News New Colourscheme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sky News Business Channel

Having followed the cited link for this section and examined the source it appears to be an article relating to Sky News Australia, can I suggest that the section either receive the correct citation, or be deleted. Thanks 195.144.135.189 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)dmc5007