h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Offshore Radio Revolution in Britain 1964 - 2004 - A2297324
Author: pamela - U235511

I have put this entry into Peer
Review before. I removed it to add
to it and have now continued it onto
another entry which I am also
submitting. I have tried to give a
brief account of the start of
'pirate radio' in the 1960s and the
changes it helped to bring about in
British radio today.

Hi Pamela - Good entry

In this paragraph - "At the beginning of the 1960s there were only three radio stations in Britain all run by the BBC. As it was the national station, the government insisted that all programmes were respectable, and that news broadcasts were reliable and impartial, which the BBC is still renowned for. It is funded by the Television licence which from 1 April 2004 is £121.00 (approx.$222.00) per year, which is paid for by all owners of television sets, except those over 75 years old, who now get a free licence. It is managed by a Board of Governors, who, on political issues, are answerable to the Home Secetary.As it was a public service it was not allowed to broadcast commercials, as the government felt that advertisers or sponsors could influence the content or quality of the programmes,a view which still persists. " You keep changing tense from past to present.

Also I think you aould have kept your 2 entries as one - but I'm not a scout, so we'll wait for one of them.

SCOUT

Hi I split the entry because I am using an Internet set-top box which could not cope with the length of the page. If you look at my original Radio Revolution thread from posting 25 ,you will find a disscussion about doing this.
In the paragraph you've quoted I was comparing the BBC of the
1960s with the way it is today, so had to jump backwards and forwards. I will try and re-write it .Pamela.

How's this going, Pamela?

Hi Cyzaki. I haven't heard from anyone for a few weeks. It's Still waiting for a scout.Pamela.

Hi – not a scout I’m afraid but I have a little input for you. In the paragraph about the TV license fee it isn’t clear on first reading if the TV or the viewer should be over 75 for a free licence! Thanks for an interesting pair of articles.

Nick

Hi Nick. I don't think there are any working T.V. sets over 75 years old. but I have changed the sentence. Pamela.

Hi Pamela – I like the way your two entries are going and I am keen to see them make the EG.

Just a couple of points (honestly – don’t get disheartened by the look of this – esp. on a set-top)

Section – The first British offshore stations:
>It is difficult to explain the spirit of adventure and challenge that the young DJs ,the majority of them just into their twenties, conveyed.< - Not sure if you mean conveyed or enjoyed – If you mean conveyed maybe you should explain HOW they conveyed it?

Section - 1967 Radio 1 - and Others
>well – known< not sure it should have spaces?

>but there have been take-overs< not sure this reads very well, maybe some stations have been taken over .. or something?

>What changes they will make remains to be seen.< seems a bit redundant?


Comments on continued from A2297324

I think due, to the ephemeral nature of radio scheduling, I would suggest re-titling your second article from >2004-Where Are They Now?< to Where are they in 2004? To remove the NOW part?

Could you use headers for this part of the article? Eg. to split up the information on DJs and Stations more? And to title the other parts

>Dave Lee Travis had a number of them. As well as 'D.L .T'< Should it be D.L.T. ?

>'The Admiral' Robbie dale< Should that be Dale?

I hope that’s not too daunting – I think the editors ought to be able to splice your entries back together if this gets to the EG

Speller

Hello Nick. Just a note to say I've seen your post. I'll work on the changes tonight. Congratulations on becoming a Scout. Pamela.

Hello again Nick. I've made a few changes to the entries.
As I said it is difficult to explain the spirit that the DJs conveyed, but I have re-written the paragraph to try again.

I have taken the spaces out of well-known and changed take-overs.

I have taken off 'What changes they will make remains to be seen', but OFCOM probably will make changes in the future.

I have put a note explaining that I have split the entry
because I am using a set-top box. Hopefully the editor can take this off if he or she joins the entries.

I changed the title of the second entry to 2004-Where Did They Go? ,but I think I've read something about not putting questions in Subheaders. I will try and check that out.

I wanted to keep the date at the front as I have done the other Subheaders that way. I didn't put it as an Header because if they are joined it would split the entry up.

I have put in more Subheaders on the second entry.

I added the full-stop to D.L.T. left the quotes on, as I have them on all the other nicknames. Also corrected Robbie Dale.

Think that's everything for now.

I see on your page that you are going to Wales on holiday .I hope you enjoy it.
all the Best.
From Pamela.

We've already alerted the Scouts that they ahev to recommend both entries at once if they want to pick this one. I think you've done extraordinarily well to get around the limitations of the digi-box, Pamela.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congrats!

Well done - a well deserved EG entry. I can't wait to see this make the front page!

Speller

Thanks Cyzaki. Pamela.

McKay. Pamela