Talk:Television in Croatia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

I have completed my initial review of this article, and I am very pleased by the technological aspects of this article in terms of all the details about broadcasting changes over time and such. The text is sound, and all the references I've checked are all in order. I've been considering passing this article because of all its good merits; however, there is one aspect to this article that I feel is missing, and I think needs to be included before I can check off requirement #3.a that the article has cover all the major aspects.

What is missing is information about the cultural aspects of television in Croatia, which is important because television (as a predominating form a media) is often considered to be both a driver and a reflection of social norms and values. One way of addressing this would be to describe what type of programming is broadcast on some of the channels that you have listed. I know you have the table of channels categorizing some as news or sports channels, but what consists of the "general" channels? Are there dramas, games show, comedy shows or reality tv shows? What about children's or educational programs? Are there any hit TV shows that are worth mentioning? I know the article breifly mentions that there are some foreign channels or programs that are subtitled or dubbed, but are those more speciality programs or are some of those hit show too? Looking back on the "Regulation" section you have, are there any regulations against airing profanity or depictions of sex and violence?

It would be nice to have a little section about these things, or at least expanding some of the current sections with a few more sentences to address some of the questions I mentions. Let me know what you think. I'll place this article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 18:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I find your remarks constructive, and I trust quality of the article will ultimately benefit from this process. Regarding the specific issues:

I would like to add a short section on the cultural aspects of television presented as a summary since a full review might turn out to be too long. Further information could be organized in a separate article. How about that?

A bit on this topic is now in, could you please take a look at it and see if this is what you meant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the general programming - that's a bit problematic to define precisely because those channels include regular news bulletins, talk shows, films, TV series (drama, sitcom etc), educational programming, national minority programming, game shows and other type of entertainment programmes, TV shows covering topics of theatre, art, music (classical, jazz, pop etc) and so forth. The two state-run channels offer greater diversity than privately owned ones though, but even the latter are mixed bags. I could, of course, list this in the article, but short of sourcing this to their programme schedules, I can imagine no source that would substantiate this. What do you suggest?
Matters of profanity, sex and violence are indeed regulated and I'll add that information. Done
Subtitling is normally used for foreign language shows. Exception to the rule are some (but very few) foreign produced IPTV stations which broadcast with no translation whatsoever (live sports mainly where translation is next to impossible and hardly necessary). Also, dubbing is used for cartoons and documentaries - however, in case of the documentaries only those bits that are originally read by a narrator are dubbed and the rest is subtitled. For instance a BBC narrator's voice will be replaced with a voiceover, but David Attenborough talking in front of the camera will be subtitled. The national minority programming is also subtitled. This, as far as I know, is not regulated but stems from years of such practice. I'm trying to think of a way to substantiate this with some sort of a source, but that will be a tricky one to find to say the least. Done

I expect to address those issues as soon as I find appropriate sources, starting today with the easy one regarding regulation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issues you brought up are addressed now. It is now matter of deciding if scope of the material is adequate or not, so could you please look at the article again in that respect and provide any further comments?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm impressed with all the additions you have made to the article! It's even better than the changes I had in mind. I particularly like that you included information about television being the primary source of information and other items in the "Social impact" section. I feel that the article is much more well rounded and complete. I can't think of any other important things to add. Great work! --Tea with toast (話) 23:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Excellent job! --Tea with toast (話) 23:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]