Talk:WIAT/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2024 (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.

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parking myself on this. Should be within 2 weeks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHF/VHF I think we need context for these abbreviations at first instance in the lead too
style nitpick, but two you have two successive sentences in the lead starting with "The station"
"while still in fourth place" - lead earlier indicated they were in third?
"consolidation which the Balaban application, which was approved." - I corrected to "with the Balaban" as I assumed this was a typo
"produced a number of local programs; it produced a public affairs" - repetition of "produced" here
Since EWTN stands for something, can we get the full name?
"Few people watched..." this sentence runs on a bit, with the colon and the semi-colon
"the newscast was replaced with newsbreaks" - for those of us who don't know the difference, could there be a touch of context?
Earlier it's Park Broadcasting, but later it's Park Communications - maybe note the name change
- Added a footnote — they changed the corporate name in 1983, it seems.
Why not link New World Communications, Citicasters, Argyle Television?
- Responding to explain why I did not do the latter. The stations involved in New World were the first Argyle. The same investors then started Argyle Television Holdings II, which merged with Hearst in 1997 to form Hearst-Argyle Television (now Hearst Television), which is Argyle's redirect target. No article covers Argyle I, and Hearst has nothing to do with the Argyle I stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "It's About Time" section is fairly lengthy, could be subsectioned
"and proceeded two months later to fire" could probably be simplified to "and two months later fired" (side note - do we know why he got canned? anything special?)
"The station's employees expected something to happen. For example, lead weeknight anchorman Chris Schauble told the Birmingham Post-Herald that he had known as early as Thanksgiving that he was going to be fired. However, many of them did not know exactly what would take place until the firings were announced." I think this could be reordered/reworded a bit. Suggest something like "The station's employees had expected Land to make significant changes. Most had not expected to lose their jobs, although lead weeknight anchorman Chris Schauble told the Birmingham Post-Herald that he had known as early as Thanksgiving that he was going to be fired."
"42 Daily News represented an immediate improvement over its predecessor" - I would clarify that this refers to an improvement in audience figures
Images correctly licensed, no other policy issues, spot checks of available sources checked out

The notes above are largely style suggestions/FAC-level nitpickery. There's nothing that gets in the way of this meeting the GA criteria even if none are implemented, so I will close this as as pass with recommendations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.