Jump to content

Talk:1989 South Florida television affiliation switch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very nice job on the article. Very impressive. And a fascinating read.

Onel5969 TT me 09:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1989 South Florida television affiliation switch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Looks short enough for my standards. I'll get to this by 17 August (give or take a few days). ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

[edit]

Earwig has no concerns.

Files

[edit]

All files are indeed relevant, of acceptable quality and free of any copyright concerns.

Prose

[edit]
Overview
  • Wikilink Miami and Fort Lauderdale in Miami–Fort Lauderdale television market.
  • No need to wikilink movie theatre.
  • I would specify "originally known as WCKT".
    • This one I'm leaving alone—there's a little more there than a call sign change.
  • Can I be a pedant and recommend "president of Sunbeam" instead?
  • I would wikilink call sign.
  • This could just be me but "providing a brief moment of hope for a struggling WITV" reads a bit too emotive. However about something like "aspiration" or "optimism" instead?
  • "as the FCC already" – recommend "as the FCC had already" since this is the wording generally used elsewhere.
  • "Channel 6 in Miami" – no need to specify Miami here as it is inferred by prior context.
    • Not changing this as an emphasis. Channel 6 could be anywhere. This is about the Miami channel 6 allocation.
  • "in order to meet minimum spacing" – I think this needs a the.
KKR takes over Wometco and Storer
  • Are any of the "several measures" perhaps noteworthy or not really?
    • Reading the article, they would be too much of a digression in this page.
  • I may be wrong as I suck at commas but I believe "split into two entities" needs to end on a semicolon or dash. This would help improve the flow of the sentence a bit which otherwise has quite a lot of commas.
  • I would rephrase "unhappy" to "dissatisfied" or "displeased" etc.
  • Is "then-existing" necessary? I do not see this brought up again in the article.
    • I suppose it could be removed.
Attempted sale of WTVJ to Lorimar
  • IMO "a revision to the Herald story" should be its own sentence as otherwise the current one is quite long.
  • "itself and rejected a $350 million" – suggest "itself and had rejected a $350 million".
  • "production and syndication company" (without the slash) should work fine.
  • "could be able to do more things with the stations than they would" reads awkwardly to me.
    • Reworded
  • I would specify "in the Bloomington–Indianapolis market", otherwise, Bloomington–Indianapolis low-key sounds like a place.
    • Reworded
The first CBS–WCIX courtship
  • "to purchase a "Sun Belt" station" – the quotation marks are not needed here since this was already used when the term was first introduced.
  • "but rumblings of interest in WTVJ" – I would rephrase rumbling.
NBC purchases WTVJ
  • "Even though a GE holding company" – Should note note that GE is for General Electric.
    • Already done in the preceding paragraph.
  • "an affiliates' conference" – what is an affiliates' conference? Or perhaps this should be "conference of affiliates"?
    • The networks used to hold annual conferences for their affiliates' general managers. All the networks had, and still have, affiliate associations. In this case it seems to have been a meeting with the CBS affiliate board.
  • "were tasked by Bob Wright" – you can use just Wright here.
  • I would wikilink memo.
Sunbeam formally protests
  • "talking to (Taft) for some time" – if Taft was not present in the original quotation use square brackets [ ] instead.
  • Do we have a policy on using honourifics and titles in articles? Otherwise I would recommend we write out instances of Rep. and Sen. in full.
  • Wikilink lobbying.
  • "Ansin's petition to deny alleged NBC" – awkward wording IMO.
  • "for lower-rated syndicated fare" – what does fare mean?
  • "One Wall Street analyst" – Wall Street?
    • Honestly the use of Wall Street as metonymy for stock market analysts is common enough I didn't think it needed a wikilink, but...
      • Ah, I had never heard of Wall Street. I think it being a megonym is an American (or at least North American) thing.
Preemptions and scheduling chaos
  • May be personal taste but I would rephrase "came to pass".
The WSVN–CBS impasse
  • "was compounded by negotiations with Ed Ansin" – any reason his full name is used here?
  • "football games thanks to the network's AFC" – recommend "because of the network's AFC" for formality.
  • "with their Miami news bureau" – already wikilinked.
  • Recommend "viewing the distinction as "a sign of privilege", calling it "like a badge"" or something like that; the current wording does not match the quotation.
Turmoil at TVX
  • "independents proved too much for a company" – how about "were too challenging for a company" for improved formality?
  • Recommend "before the Black Monday stock market crash" so the reader will have enough context not to click on the link.
  • "while Ed Ansin conceded" – full name.
CBS acquires WCIX
  • "the network also announced WPEC would also" – recommend finding a synonym to avoid using also in such close succession.
A West Palm affiliation shuffle
  • Compared to the other quotations used in this article, I really do not think the one from Bob Morford adds much. It would be better summarised IMO.
  • "with its established operation" – definitely pedantry but I would find a synonym for this as established was used in the same paragraph not too long ago. Also:
  • Said sentence is really long; I do not think ; is needed twice in a row.
  • "it had selected WPBF, which had offered" – recommend avoiding had twice here.
  • "with a thud at WTVX" – I would rephrase thud.
  • "network stared independence straight in the face" – recommend rephrasing for formality.
  • "The decision also was received" – should it not be was also?
WSVN's news and Fox gamble
  • Do we really use 7+1⁄2 like that in non-mathematical articles? (I genuinely do not know but I do not recall seeing this format used before)
  • "largely operating on autopilot" – meaning?
  • Wikilink prime time.
Initiating the switches
  • I would spell out EEOC in full for easier reader context.
  • "The network, however, did invest" – how about "The network did however invest" for better flow?
  • IMO we can remove the quotation marks from "irrelevant".
  • "the date Ed Ansin" – full name again.
  • "affiliate with (Ansin)" – brackets (as above).
  • I feel like "in one instance" should be the start of a new sentence.
  • "all in lame-duck status" – recommend rephrasing to be less colloquial.
  • "when it launched in August 1988" – the year is not needed here since it is mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
Ramifications
  • No need for the quotation marks on halo effect.
  • "in both the Nielsen and Arbitron books" – wikilink both.
    • Done, but Arbitron was bought by Nielsen (years after they exited TV ratings).
  • I would wikilink tabloid (also present in the lead).
  • "if it (the purchase)" – brackets.
  • Wikilink Sacramento.
  • "transmitter; and promotion expenses." – the semicolon feels out of place here, and I would generally avoid using and after one in most cases.
    • Good catch. The list itself does not have comma elements.
  • I wonder if "multiple technical issues" and "problems establishing viewer loyalty" could be elaborated upon at all; it seems fairly noteworthy/significant IMO for it to have caused a near-30 percent downsizing (unless this was mainly due to the recession). The subsection is also fairly short in comparison with the other stations.
    • Definitely the financial situation. I have added a few words here to explain the other items.
  • What does "eleventh hour of a deal" mean?
    • Reworded
The 1995 WTVJ–WCIX channel "trade"
  • Is there a reason moving and moved have quotation marks?
    • The deal is complicated. The way it was structured legally and the way it was structured for all other intents and purposes are different. See, say, WFOR-TV, which carries the footnote The deal was structured in such a way that WFOR-TV operates on the former WTVJ license and WTVJ operates on the former WCIX license..

Should be done here. This review is so long (by my standards ) it needs credits. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

Passes spotcheck on refs 1, 3, 20, 37, 47, 53, 88, 94, 102, 111, 126, 134, 148, 166, 177, 209 and 234.

  • Is there a reason ref 62 is a cite bundle?
    • Article was revised in a later edition of the Miami Herald that same day.
  • Ref 126 has a CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list issue.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 21:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk) and Nathan Obral (talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie (talk) at 05:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1989 South Florida television affiliation switch; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Finally get to review one of these. Article is a recent GA and certainly qualifies for length. Sources are on point and were presumably reviewed in further detail during the GA process. I like the first hook pretty much as is. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1989_South_Florida_television_affiliation_switch&oldid=1196247484"