Talk:Scud FM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and help with the to do list.	BBC Portal
BBC To do: Shortcut: WP:BBC Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Free use images for biographical articles Cleanup: BBC One Expand: BBC One O'Clock News, BBC Six O'Clock News, BBC Two 1991-2001 idents, BBC Two Northern Ireland, BBC One 'Circle' idents, BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents Stubs: BBC One Scotland Update: Portal:BBC regularly, BBC News 24 Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages.

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Scud FM was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: March 8, 2007

[edit] Rename and logo

This article should probably be moved to BBC Radio 4 News FM as this sounds more like the proper name out of the selection, and as the service also covered other events apart from the Gulf War [1], this is probably a more accurate description. It is also mentioned as such in Jenny Abramsky's BBC biography. The logo is also of concern to me, as this appears to be a mock-up rather than official (since 'Scud FM' was a nickname) and we should be careful not to misrepresent the service. mattbr³⁰ 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns regarding the logo. There is no source information as of where the logo came from, to verify that the BBC used it at all. As Mattbr30 says, it does look like a mock up, and if a source cannot be verified to back-up its use by the BBC, it should be deleted, as I suspect, it will violate WP:FAIR and misrepresent the BBC. --tgheretford (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text from the bottom of the relevant Radio 4 logo as this version was never published. However the service was called "Scud FM" by the BBC employees and in the press and has always been known by that name. I've included plenty of references to this fact on the page. Briantist 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But no proof that this was the official name. I don't believe that the name was ever officially "Scud FM" although this may have been used unofficially or as a nickname. Stephenb (Talk) 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, quoting from your first link: "They agreed and Radio 4 Gulf FM, affectionately known to its team as SCUD FM, was born." - therefore, I believe the article is mis-titled, and should be "Radio 4 Gulf FM". Stephenb (Talk) 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'They agreed and Radio 4 Gulf FM, affectionately known to its team as SCUD FM, was born.' in http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/abramsky_oxford2.shtml, "From the following morning, 17 January, a continuous Gulf War news service was broadcast on Radio 4FM. "Scud FM", its emergency staff called it. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/spl/hi/history/noflash/html/1990s.stm It was also called this in the press too... Briantist 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

', known by insiders as ‘Scud FM’.' http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/newsdesk/bbc50.php Briantist 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

'Scud FM - as Radio 4's News FM network was popularly known - was launched and broadcast 18 hours a day with the help of volunteers' http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030408/ai_n12692215

'That experiment, known as "Scud FM", formed the skeleton for Radio Five Live.' http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030325/ai_n12677339 Briantist 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the point - "known to insiders" and "its staff called it" but the OFFICIAL name, as given in the first quote even YOU give, was obviously "Radio 4 Gulf FM". "Scud FM" was obviously a nickname and never used to refer to the service to listeners Stephenb (Talk) 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have just demonstrated the BBC call the service Scud FM http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3564395.stm Lots of these have BBC URL's.

"She wrote the first piece for Scud FM, the BBC's experimental rolling news service on the original Radio 5 during the first Gulf war in 1991. " and so on. The BBC call it Scud FM, it was called Scud FM in parliament.

That's rather "after the fact" - I'd prefer contemporary evidence that this was its official name, not a name it was "affectionally known as". Stephenb (Talk) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was called Scud FM from the day it started, in the press and in parliament. If you wish to contract me, it is up to you to provide evidence to counter mine. You are making an assertion that is incorrect and have no evidence. Another example: "After the audience success of continuous news coverage during the Gulf War of 1991 on Radio Four FM frequencies (often referred to as 'SCUD FM')" http://www.arar93.dsl.pipex.com/mds975/Content/ukradio3.html Briantist 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What more do you need than the person who created it to call it "Scud FM"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/abramsky_oxford2.shtml Briantist 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another quote "That was a post Scud-FM reaction (after the first Gulf War's blanket 24h coverage on R4)." http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?referrerid=109801&t=246544

The fact that the service was devised in 24 hours, rather than the usual period of three or four years and had no time to go to the marketing people meant that the service never had an OFFICIAL name, so everyone called it 'Scud FM' and I have provided lots of quotes to prove it. Briantist 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a contempoary reference for you from 1992. " 1992 Sheena McDonald Guardian (U.K.) (Aug. 17) “Scud-FM goes critical—BBC gears up for round-the-clock news service” p. 25: Sceptics recall the reality of Gulf coverage as wastes of half-informed speculation by retired military men, punctuated by theatrical press conferences stunted up by the US military, complete with video inserts and the wit and wisdom of Stormin’ Norman http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/stunt_up/ Briantist 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some references from various books now too. Briantist 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the wording you use ("The name journalists gave it") makes it much clearer and I am no longer concerned about the article implying that "Scud FM" was the official name for the service to listeners Stephenb (Talk) 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Briantist 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also "Radio 4 News FM" could quite easily descibe the Today program, The World at One, PM and so forth. Briantist 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it was nicknamed 'Scud FM', but I very much doubt that the BBC as an entity would have called it such. I don't know what it was called on air, but the official BBC biography of Jenny Abramsky states:

In 1991 she set up Radio 4's News FM network for the duration of the first Gulf War.

and Jenny Abramsky herself referred to the service as 'Radio 4 Gulf FM' as previously quoted. I don't think that news programs would be described as 'Radio 4 News FM', as these programs are not just on FM and would be referred to as 'Radio 4 news programs'. mattbr³⁰ 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also this quote from Gillian Reynolds of the Daily Telegraph:

Radio 4 News FM is proving something of a severe opportunity for the BBC...

from Abramsky's lecture. mattbr³⁰ 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay! How about "BBC Radio 4 FM frequencies at the Gulf War"?--JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some EVIDENCE to support your position, rather than just contradict the eight references in the text. ••Briantist•• talk 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article has been reviewed against the good article criteria and has been placed on a seven day hold. This means that some minor niggles exist which prevent elevation to GA status, but which you have between two and seven days to iron out before I re-evaluate the article. The review is below.

Well Written: FAIL

• The lead section needs a re-write. It should be made clear that Radio 4 gave over its entire network to rolling news, that this had no precedent, and that it was broadcast in the UK only - this removes the ambiguity about whether this station was an in-theatre station or a home broadcast channel.

Radio 4 did not give over it's entire network, only the FM frequency, as describe. ••Briantist•• talk 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Organise the article better. Putting all the information in one section is not a good article. Appropriate headings/divisions would be "Creation", "Press/General Reaction" and "Consequences".

Factually Accurate and Verifiable: PASS

• Statements referenced to a good degree. I would prefer it if standard procedure were followed and references placed after punctuation marks, but this is not strictly necessary for GA.

Broad: PASS

• The article is broad enough, given its limited subject matter.

NPOV: PASS

• In keeping with the BBC ethic, this article is neutral!

Stable: PASS

• The article is not a victim of ongoing edit wars

Pictures: FAIL

• The article has no pictures, but this criterion is not a requirement of a GA candidate, just a suggestion

Chrisfow 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are two massive quotations. Perhaps parts could be paraphrased (retaining the references, obviously). Is it possible that the 'further reading' could be integrated into the main article and be cited as references for consistency? I've reworked the lead. The JPS^{talk to me} 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Have these concerns been addressed? If so note it here. The on hold has expired but if they have been addressed it can be passed. I'll wait one day for a response otherwise I have to fail it.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems this article's time is up, looks like the re-write never happened.... Homestarmy 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)