Jump to content

Talk:WDCW

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

Change

[edit]

WDCW and WDVM have combined to be DC News Now you should combine the two wiki pages or make the wdvm the dc news now page as WDVM is gone :) -- DC News Now Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.229.134.250 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're probably not going to see this, but I figured I'd leave an explainer here.
Before DC News Now, channels 25 and 50 were separate stations with separate histories, each having been on air for more than 40 years. In fact, they still have separate broadcast licenses and programming. We can't fit that in one article. If things go on long enough, we might wind up with a partially transcluded "shared article" on the newsroom that contains information of relevance for both stations (First Coast News is the type example; WTLV and WJXX transclude pieces of it). But it's way too early. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

For anyone curious as to how I figured that WDCW, then WBDC started using this logo in 2001, it took a little bit of internet forensics. I found the musical packaged commissioned by the network which was introduced in tandem with the logo. It is called The Jim and Howard News Music Package, which can be heard at 615 Music. Doing a search for wbdc "615 music" on Google, the earliest mention of the WBDC in conjunction with 615 Music was on a newsletter from the RTNDA called Trade Secrets, dated March 2002. The mention is a summary of 615's activity which included creating "'Jim and Howard' for WBDC." Also in the Google results is the this archived post to DCRTV from September 2001 noting that WBDC had very recently introduced a new logo. Thus I figure WBDC had introduced the above logo for the introduction of the 2001-2002 television season. SterlingNorth 10:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Change

[edit]

It appears WDCW is now using their new logo, but only on-air. The website, as well as some old promos, are still using the old "Washington's WB" logo.



Have they increased the power of their digital signal? the last few weeks it seems to come in much better than before.

Washington Capitals, Baltimore O's

[edit]

Are the Washington capitals, and the baltimore O's still on The CW washington?


Not the Orioles.

Neither team airs on that station any longer. EvWill (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Nationals are now on DC50 fairly regularly but only for Sunday afternoon games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.8.191 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:WDCW/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Will start on this tonight or tomorrow. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving it here for now. Will pick up tomorrow at WFTY. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, full review up now. I hope this doesn't come off as if I think there's a huge amount to fix. The article's in great shape overall. But proofreader/copy-editor has been, at times, my day job, and TV news and D.C. history are both areas of interest for me, so I have a lot of little thoughts. On that note, I've flagged one potential jargon issue, but if any of my own suggestions seem to assume too much reader familiarity with broadcasting, let me know. I grew up in a household where critiquing TV channels, news and entertainment, was a routine part of dinner conversation, so I'm trying to balance for that. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1

[edit]
Resolved
  • Is there a reason "section" is used in the lede to describe Glover Park and Tenleytown, rather than, say, "neighborhood"?
    Reworded
  • What's a comparative hearing?
    The FCC's longstanding (1930s–90s) process for wading through competing radio and TV applications. I need to write an article at that location someday. This has come up at several GA reviews. For now, it's linked to a glossary entry.
  • operating as the Washington area's third independent: Is it correct to use "independent" as a noun this way? Even if so, seems a bit jargony.
    It is, but in the lead honestly I shouldn't.
  • The bandleader, however, would soon be bumped from the lead when the FCC review board opted to strike a different note.: Synecdochially referring to Miller as "the bandleader", having not used that label to describe him before, is confusing. Either change to "conductor" as before, or call him by his name. Also, is "would" necessary here? There's no jump between timeframes.
    Reworded
  • In a July 1967 decision, the board chose the application of Granik because, while he also sought to run the station full-time, Miller lived in New York and would have only been at the station full-time during its start-up period, whereas Granik had lived in Washington for 29 years: This bounces back and forth a lot. Could we make the logic more linear? Something like ... because he had lived in Washington for 29 years, unlike Miller, who ...
    Reworded
  • In the end, Trans Community Broadcasting, a group led by Leghorn and Theodore S. Ledbetter Jr., a Black telecommunications consultant, paid $45,500: Nested subordinate clauses, a bit hard to follow. Maybe either use dashes or use "Black telecommunications consultant" as a pseudo-title for Ledbetter?
    Reworded
  • also caused another delay: "also" and "another" seem redundant.
    Reworded
  • plans ... were dased by competing independent WTTG, which decided to renew the show, and by October: Bit of a garden-path sentence, suggesting October dashed the plans. Maybe a semicolon?
    Reworded
  • Should "breach of contract" be hyphenated as a compound noun?
    Hmm, I don't...think so?
  • It was the first such news-share program ever announced and the second to air (twelve days earlier, a similar newscast production agreement had started between WNEP-TV and WOLF in Scranton, Pennsylvania): Both the parenthetical and the part before it are complete sentences, so it should be ... to air. (Twelve days... However, might it make more sense to put that rather tangential parenthetical in an {{efn}}? Just a thought.
    I've definitely been using efns more since I originally wrote this.
  • the previous program (The Avengers) that channel 50 had aired at that time: "previous" and "at that time" is a bit confusing. Maybe ... had aired in that time slot?
    Reworded
  • then-United States Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown: MOS:SEAOFBLUE, suggest rewording
    Reordered
  • Maybe wikilink "inspector general" to Office of Inspector General (United States)?
    Done
  • in order to catch up and begin airing the schedule in pattern on March 1: "in pattern" seems jargony too.
    Reworded
  • Should Tribune Media and/or Tribune Broadcasting be linked?
    Yes, done.
  • and combine the networks' respective programming to create a new 'fifth' network: why the scare quotes?
    That was left from a prior version. Similar wording is in a lot of articles.
  • With WTVR bound for purchase by the E. W. Scripps Company to address regulatory issues in the Richmond market, on September 6, 2018, Tribune announced that the newscast would be cancelled effective September 28: Somewhat confusing sentence structure; is it neceessary to include the announcement date in addition the actual cancellation date?
  • No, and that's a good catch. That's a solid example of recentism.
    a former NBC affiliate for Hagerstown converted into an independent station specializing in hyperlocal news programs for specific areas of the Washington media market: Long clause without a lot of prepositions to break it up. Might I suggest, a former NBC affiliate which had been converted into an independent station making hyperlocal news programs for specific areas of the Washington media market.
  • all of the operation's 80 additional staffers, many of which were newcomers to the market "which" → "whom"
    Fixed
  • the official date in which "in" → "on"
    Fixed
  • The station's digital signal relocated from its pre-transition UHF channel 51 to channel 50 for post-transition operations: Aren't "pre-transition" and "post-transition" redundant here?
    Yeah. Fixed.
  • "bureaux" > "bureaus" don't @ me

@Tamzin: Thanks for giving this some fresh eyes, especially from outside the field. You probably have caught some whiffs of our...worst tendencies. (Go look at KOCO-TV and famine thine eyes.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2d

[edit]
Resolved
  • given thousands of dollars in political contributions to Democrats is verbatim from the Post. It's arguably below the threshold of originality, might still be better to rephrase.
    Reworded.

Criterion 4

[edit]
Resolved
  • Are there any relevant denials or different narratives by Hill or Brown that should be included?
    • They really didn't comment. There's also, honestly, room for an article about Nolanda Hill. Her relationship with Ron Brown was highly relevant, and she already had independent notability from her TV projects.
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 BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 06:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WDCW, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Sammi Brie: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WDCW&oldid=1209193551"