Talk:2011 BRIT Awards highlights

Broadcast report
I watched the BRIT Awards 2011 as they were broadcast live on ITV1 on February 15, 2011. -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 21:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I watched the entire programme and saw all the awards being given out and all of the speeches being made as well as all the performances. I have got sources provided but where there are no sources provided for information, I have used my own personal information about the BRIT Awards as much as possible with writing this article. -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have watched the programme again on ITV Player to verify what I have reported in the article. -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar
Could we have something a bit more appropriate than ITV? It's an article more focused upon the music event, not the company that broadcasted it. — μ 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When
The lede doesn't answer this basic question, and should. Always; this should be one of the easiest questions for the lede, and is especially important to have handily available since it figures directly in freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1181172 [Passed]
Rayboy8 and Dendodge, please consider yourselves both trouted. The OR notes are inadequate, and, by letting that get past, the reviewer is failing to send that clear message to to the author.

OR notes should include full details of all OR information used in the article, so that the reviewer has a basis on which to distinguish between information that comes from OR, and a simple error on the author's part &mdash; which needs to be kept clearly separate from the question of accuracy of the OR, regardless of how far the OR itself may be trusted. Without the ability to make that distinction, review cannot properly serve its function. It is not sufficient as OR notes to say "I also saw some other stuff that isn't in the cited sources, so if there's any information you can't find anywhere else, just assume I got it that way." --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I never said that this article has original reporting in it. It is partly a broadcast report. That means that some of the information contained in this article was obtained from television. I'm afraid I do not know what you are talking about, Pi zero but you appear to be mistaken. -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 22:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, you're supposed to make notes while watching the TV and type them up for our benefit. But the stuff that wasn't in the sources was fairly routine (as in, the order in which people played, etc.), and I didn't want all Rayboy's work to go to waste over a few notes. I have seen other broadcast reports with just as few notes get passed before. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 22:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have been; it's an abrogation of the reviewer's responsibility. Broadcast reporting is just a specialized form of OR in which the privileged source is of a particular form (and by privileged I mean that the reporter had access to it but the reviewer doesn't); the demands placed on the review process are functionally identical.  There's the superficial difference between templates Broadcast report and Original reporting &mdash; which are used the same way and both refer for detailed information to reporter's notes on the talk page.  And those reporter's notes serve, as I said, the same purpose regardless of template choice.  Which they can't serve if the information isn't there.  Note that template Broadcast report does spell this out, that what should be found on the talk page is primarily reporter's notes, and secondarily broadcast source details.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)