Talk:KOVR/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Claiming review, ping if I don't finish within a week etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "This facility provided wide coverage..." this sentence reads a bit overlong, I think it could be split, most likely at "whereas its move..."
• "on intense pressure on owners" I assume government pressure but it might be worth saying so

Mount Diablo years

• "but they would all have to wait after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed a freeze on new television station awards that would last nearly four years" " this phrasing feels a bit journalistic, and it has a double instance of conditional future-past with "would X" (I don't know the formal term for it, sorry, but it's basically when you replace a normal past tense usage like "received" with "would receive")
• "Awards" is also confusing in this context, since they're not handing out awards, they're awarding licenses. Not sure how to rephrase - maybe a total rewrite and move the "nearly four years". Something like this maybe: "but all applications were paused when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed a freeze on new television station licenses. When the freeze ended in 195x, channel 13 had been removed..."
• I might also split this somewhat large paragraph, but won't die on the hill of it
• "In addition to Radio Diablo" not sure this phrase is needed, we already know RD is still applying
• This may be unfamiliarity with the subject matter, but why did KXOB and Peffer get shares in RD? It's not clear what dispute was being settled.
  • Merger of competing applicants so someone got the permit and they didn't go into a long comparative hearing. Not uncommon.
• Ref 9 doesn't quite back up that state fair coverage was a "highlight", just that it was broadcast
• UHF needs to be explained and linked on first appearance
• "It attempted to move..." This sentence could probably be simplified or split. Suggest something like
  • "KOVR's 1955 attempt to move its main operation from Stockton to San Francisco was denied by the FCC as it would have stripped Stockton of its lone VHF television station and there were already several television channels allotted to the Bay Area. The company did announce it would add a studio in San Francisco on a secondary basis."
• Like UHF, VHF should be linked and explained on first mention
• "This studio was located in the Mark Hopkins Hotel, where the San Francisco offices were also relocated." I don't think I understand this sentence. The secondary studio was relocated to where the secondary studio was located?
  • They had offices in other space in San Francisco before moving to the Mark.
• "However, as time went on" - 'However' can be removed, and you could also rearrange the sentence to nuke "in order to" and the future past "would be"
• Not sure ref 23 backs up that KCCC-TV was "clearly endangered". I see in ref 25 that they complained, but not sure if that's enough to cover the phrasing.
• I assume there's no source that says why KCCC-TV withdrew opposition
  • Nope. Not even in Broadcasting

Gannett

• "was not consummated and dismissed" I think this should be "and was dismissed" to more clearly separate it from "not consummated"
• "(This company renamed itself Metromedia in 1961)" - I won't die on this hill, but this could be a footnote, or at least better integrated - having it in brackets mid-paragraph is odd
• "KOVR would be highlighted" future past again. "was"
• For the same sentence, ref 39 does not say anything about Metro's ownership in relation to the tower project.

McClatchy

• I'm not sure most of paragraph 1 is necessary. It talks a great deal about McClatchy's desire for a TV station, but much of it relates to the failed purchase of another station, which really belongs in either that station's article or in McClatchy's.
  • The antitrust issues in owning The Bee plus a TV station killed their shot at channel 10 in a very high-profile fashion. McClatchy's years of appeal showed how bitter they were over not getting channel 10. The antitrust through-line is the reason McClatchy got out of TV much earlier than many comparable newspaper-and-broadcast companies, and it basically led them to sell KOVR even when they didn't really "have" to. This material is very, very necessary to understand the next section.
    • I disagree, but I'm not going to make an issue of it at GA.
• Similarly, I'm not sure the detail about the bee mascots is warranted. The only thing that pertains to KOVR is that they did a new sign-on animation, which doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic to me.
  • Probably fair (though this did become the DYK hook fact for KSEE, which at least used the bee from day 1)
• Suggest linking antitrust and/or monopolization at some point

Cross-ownership

• "However, in the second half of the 1970s" however is not needed here
• Suggest linking grandfathering
• "turned the policy on its head" is this phrasing really accurate, considering they'd already made moves toward preventing cross-ownership?
• This may again be my unfamiliarity with the topic, but how does McClatchy and Multimedia Inc trading TV stations alleviate cross-ownership? They would still both own TV stations, no?
  • The issue is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. McClatchy owned a newspaper and a TV station in Sacramento. Multimedia owned a newspaper and a TV station in Greenville. Had this deal gone through, neither party would have owned a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. While this deal never came to fruition, some very much like it did. Most notably, the owners of the Detroit News traded a Detroit TV station for the Washington TV station owned by The Washington Post.
    • Okay, so the issue is that it's owning both in the same place. Can you perhaps clarify that in the text or maybe in a footnote? It's not necessarily intuitive to people who don't know this area.
• "At that time, negotiations to extend the term" - "At that time" is redundant and can be removed
• I'm not sure the clause beginning with "the two companies announced that..." is necessary. We don't learn what changes weren't agreeable, so it feels like not much of substance is being said. "The deal was called off by mutual agreement" would tell us just as much in fewer words.

Changing ownership, AnchorMedia, River City

• The first sentence could be split up, it's quite lengthy
• Second-most expensive ever sounds like that still holds as of 2024 - does it? If so, we need a more modern source to say so. Otherwise we should revise to make clear that was at the time of the sale
  • Yeah no, not by a long shot.
• Not sure the detail about the Bass Group's outside purchases are necessary
  • Wanted to note (as local media did) the company's increasing holdings in the Sacramento area.
    • Okay, fair
• Any outcome on the AnchorMedia vs Narragansett lawsuit, or even any details? What key employees did N take away, and how?
  • This is the only news report that even covers the existence of a lawsuit.
• I made some minor tweaks to the AnchorMedia and River City sections
• You could probably merge the first 2 paras in River City
• I'm not entirely sure the detail about the Condit interview is necessary. It's not particularly historic, they didn't even really get a scoop, Chung outdid them the same night.

No gripes for CBS ownership, News operation, and Technical information sections. Spot checks were performed, mostly acceptable with a few instances of phrasing that I would consider not quite aligned with the sources - noted above. Images are properly free-licensed and appropriately captioned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: I've made pretty much every change suggested except for a few that relate to the specifics of the McClatchy antitrust/cross-ownership issues. This is a huge topical issue in station history and in McClatchy company history, and this article plus KSEE have a lot to do with it. McClatchy probably remains in TV for another 15 to 20 years if not for this problem. It loomed over their two TV stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks good; I still disagree on the McClatchy stuff but I won't hold up the GAN over it. Passing now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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.