Talk:C-SPAN/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Revisions based on peer review feedback

Back in late April, I initiated a peer review of this article. My goal was to receive feedback from uninvolved editors and prepare the article for submission at Feature article review, and so Imzadi1979 and Groupuscule have done.

Over the last several weeks I have worked from their suggestions to prepare a series of updates to the article. Not many are significant by themselves, however in totality they may well be. Editors familiar with the page will know that I am a paid consultant to C-SPAN, so I think it is best that I refrain from making any direct edits to this article. With this message, I'd like to ask someone else to consider doing just that.

To assist in this process, I have added the current C-SPAN markup to my user space and have implemented all changes there. For those who are interested, please see the draft at: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_(2013_revision). Below I will provide notes on the changes I made in response to the specific feedback I received.

Imzadi1979's feedback

Imzadi's feedback focused on the citations in the article. In response to his suggestions I have made the changes in the following diff: Changes based on Imzadi's feedback. Details in collapsed box following:

Updates based on Imzadi1979's feedback

For ease of comparison, the order of my responses here corresponds to the order of Imzadi's suggestions on the Peer review page: Updated all the dates in the article, and reference templates to American-style Added in links to sources available online; where I was unable to find free web versions I added a link to Nexis and provided the original page number to help others, who may have access to newspaper archives, better find the article As requested I have used the |location= parameter to add the location of a news publication, if the publication's name does not make the location clear Corrected inconsistencies between work and publisher when citing the C-SPAN website (updated all to |work=c-span.org |publisher=C-SPAN) Added the |department= parameter to several sources where a regular feature/column was mistakenly listed under |work= Updated the name of the source currently listed as "C-SPAN's Letter to Speaker of House Representatives". I have changed this to "C-SPAN letter to Nancy Pelosi" Corrected citations that listed the Associated Press as the |work= instead of |agency= Added links to the three sources that were generating error messages because they included the |accessdate= parameter but no link Replaced the {{cite web}} templates in the final paragraph of the article with cite book templates, as requested In addition, I noticed the following related inconsistencies and have corrected them: The majority of {{cite news}} references were |author= so I've changed over the few that were |last= |first= In the current version of the article, there are a couple of sources that show up in the Reference list twice; I replaced duplicated references with existing <ref> tags

Groupuscule's feedback

Groupuscule's feedback addressed the content of the article. In response to his suggestions I have made the changes that can be seen in the following diff: Changes based on Groupuscule's feedback. Here also, extensive details in collapsed box following:

Updates based on Groupuscule's feedback

Again, I am providing my responses in the same order as this editor's feedback: Revised the introductory paragraph to break apart long sentences that made the paragraph difficult to read Removed "relatively small" from the second paragraph of the introduction as it is an opinion, not a fact As part of the changes I made in response to Imzadi's feedback I added in weblinks to sources, where possible. I used free online sources when available, however I was only able to find the transcript of this Fox News broadcast on Nexis, so I have included a link there. I understand that not everyone is able to verify this information, but Wikipedia guidelines are clear that sources are not required to be available online. Thanks, glad you like the photo! In the Organization and operations section, I added in more details on the annual budget, and how it is funded, however I was unable to find additional information I felt was well suited to add to this section. As C-SPAN is a TV network, the majority of their "operations" are TV programming, which is what the majority of the article is focused on. In the Public and media opinion section, I corrected the dead link to the FAIR study with the link Groupuscule provided. I also searched for additional coverage relating to a bias on C-SPAN, but wasn't able to find much notable coverage. I did find one study from 2007, mentioned in a Washington Post article, about C-SPAN covering conservative think tanks more than left-leaning ones and have included this. Additionally, following Groupuscule's comment I looked into C-SPAN's coverage of third-party candidates and wasn't able to find too much information. I did find a Washington Post piece on the third-party debates C-SPAN aired in 2012, however I felt that this information didn't quite belong in this section, so I have left it out. I revised the first sentence of the Must-carry section to clarify what "Must-carry" means and how it impacted C-SPAN. I did not rewrite the citations to remove the templates. Given that there are over 120 sources in the article this seems a lot of work for potentially little gain, and citation templates have other advantages of their own. Additionally, Imzadi's feedback, which focused on the citations, did not mention this. As for the sources Groupuscule provided, I added in the following: C-SPAN's coverage of Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving is already covered in the penultimate paragraph of the Public affairs section, however I have added in this Washington Post source, though I did not add new text to the section. I added in the Associated Press article about Nancy Pelosi using C-SPAN content on her website, and C-SPAN's subsequent revision to their copyright policy. This issue is currently addressed in the Availability online section and I chose not to add in a mention of the event involving Pelosi, since the article already discusses the use of C-SPAN's video of Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent's dinner. The event involving Colbert was more widely covered and I do not think that every copyright instance needs to be discussed in this section. In addition, I added in the Associated Press source Groupuscule provided about the Stephen Colbert video. I added this to a sentence in the Availability online section that currently lacks a citation. I added this New York Times piece by Andrew Rosenthal to add a sentence to the second paragraph of the Public and media opinion section about C-SPAN's impact on elections in the 1980s. I did not include the following sources, for the reasons provided as follows. If other editors feel that the information in these article could be included, please feel free to add it in. This New York Times article which I felt was more of a lifestyle piece and was unsure what from the article should be added in. This U.S. News & World Report source, because C-SPAN's interest in covering the Gridiron Dinner is already covered in the Scope of coverage section and I feel that one source is enough to support the single sentence on this topic. This Washington Post article, because it was from a gossip column. I did an additional search for articles on D-SPAN, CAL-SPAN, M-SPAN and T-SPAN and was unable to find significant coverage of these instances. I also don't think that C-SPAN seeking to protect its copyright is unique or important enough for inclusion in this article. This CBS News article. I felt that the focus of the article was quite similar to other information covered in the Scope of coverage section. Additionally, this article is correcting the misconception that C-SPAN was responsible for turning off their cameras in the House during the "GOP revolt"; since this incorrect information is not included in the article it does not make sense to me to include an article correcting this. This Wired article, which was too general to include, considering how many sources are already cited. The article by Tom Shales because it covered only a minor event. While it is interesting that the Friends of C-SPAN group was formed to help get C-SPAN reinstated in New Jersey in 1982, this information doesn't fit in with the Must-carry section, and a Google search leads me to believe that the Friends of C-SPAN group was short-lived. The tone of this Los Angeles Times article seems a little too casual / humorous to be taken seriously here. Additionally, since the survey mentioned in this article was conducted by C-SPAN, the (arguably self-serving) results are not critical to include.

Other updates

In addition to the requested updates, while preparing this draft, other issues came to my attention or were brought to it by C-SPAN. Here are the other changes I've made, which you can see in this diff: Additional changes to update article. As above, detailed discussion follows:

Additional changes based on C-SPAN feedback

Happily, just one list this time: In the infobox I've updated the out-of-date C-Band information with the current satellite information. I've made a few slight edits to the introduction of this article to note that C-SPAN is available to "approximately" 100 million customers. Due to fluctuations in the the number of cable and satellite subscribers, C-SPAN's reach changes from year to year and the use of "approximately" makes this intro more evergreen. I've also updated the first paragraph of the intro to note that the C-SPAN radio app is available for more than just the iPhone operating system now. I noticed that the article did not mention that C-SPAN covers midterm elections so I have introduced a new source and added this information into the Public affairs section. In the second paragraph of the Public affairs section I have moved "congressional hearings" up to the front of the list of the types of events that C-SPAN airs. The majority of C-SPAN's programming is congressional hearings so listing this first seemed appropriate. Also, the same paragraph includes information from a 1992 survey of C-SPAN viewers, so I have used an existing source in the article to add in the results of a similar survey from this year. The third paragraph of the Public affairs section lists other types of programming C-SPAN airs, including funerals. Several specific funerals are listed, however I noticed that the sources provided do not support the inclusion of Rosa Parks or Gerald Ford. I've opted to remove specific names and have replace the sentences in question with a more basic, non-list-y statement about this type of coverage. I think that listing individual names here invites this list to keep growing and might be seen as biased, depending on which names are included. I have also added two new sources that provide information on funerals C-SPAN has televised. I made slight copy-edits to the final paragraph of the Public affairs section since the use of the phrase "the content is the emphasis" seemed a little confusing. I also removed the reference that appeared mid-sentence, because the same source appeared at the end of the sentence. In the Availability online section I have used a new source to add in that the C-SPAN Video Library now counts 200,000 hours of available programming. Also in this section, I have added in that C-SPAN's Convention Hub website, first launched in 2008, returned for the 2012 presidential election. The first sentence of the Public and media opinion section had the wrong year for the survey. I have corrected this and I have also indicated that it was a C-SPAN-conducted survey, which I think is important to note. I made a slight copy-edit to the final sentence of the Must-carry section because the use of "also" and "in areas" makes it seem like C-SPAN is not currently available in all areas, which is not the case.

Thank you so much to anyone who takes the time to read through this. I hope you'll take a few minutes to look at the updated draft in my user space and consider helping me improve this article by replacing the current article's markup with this revised version (while removing the {{user page}} tag + re-enabling categories). Though this message is long, I think you'll find that the changes I have made to the article are actually quite simple, though they are many. For the sake of transparency I wanted to make it very clear what I have changes I have made, hence the length.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions about these notes or my draft. Also, if you see anything in my draft you'd like changed, please feel free to make edits to the draft directly. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Approvals

• I checked and the changes made to the references based on Imzadi's peer review are fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I checked and the changes made to the article based on Groupuscule's peer review are also fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I also checked the changes made based on C-SPAN feedback and found them to be fine with one exception. A state funeral is at most a few hours long, but coverage of the deceased lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda may encompass a few days, so reducing the sentences on coverage to just "C-SPAN also covers funerals of former presidents and other notable individuals." seems a bit too brief to me (I am fine with omitting specific names of those whose funerals were covered). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the funeral sentence diff Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now copied the user space version to the actual article. I will try to take a look at it for more suggestions before a possible FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch! I really appreciate you taking the time to review the diffs and update the live version of the article. Likewise, your revision to include "lying in state" works for me. I'm planning on submitting the draft early next week for FAC, so if you wanted to look through the article and make any other changes in the next few days, please do! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel like WWB has done a good job of responding to my questions and concerns, and I think the article is looking great. I wish there were more sources out there to analyze bias and diversity on C-SPAN, but their existence isn't readily apparent. The article does a good job of reflecting the available literature base. Sorry for the delayed response. groupuscule (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to HD made it unavailable on TV to me

Is the analog version still available? If not I could understand more readily why Time Warner chose to deny me as a lowest tier customer in Buffalo, NY any of the 3 networks as of 2012.1archie99 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your question is beyond the scope of this talk page. You might try http://www.c-span.org/ which streams much of the content. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I made my question here because C-Span did not care that their listing for my zip code had the old channel listed; TW now carries sports on that channel. C-Span's reply to my e-mail more or less told me to chew rocks.1archie99 (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • While I am sorry for your cable problems, this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article. I would contact Time Warner for more information (as they control what comes into your tv, not C-SPAN or Wikipedia), but my guess is that the world of analog is going away quickly in most parts of the US. As I said, in theory you can watch some stuff online. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)