Jump to content

Talk:WVPX-TV

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 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:WVPX-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well. On first glance, doesn't look bad at all, considering the length of time this has been hanging around. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See below—will go through once image issues are fixed.
    Done
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Don't really get the need for citations in the lead, but WP:LEADCITE is optional.
  • Usually I don't do that when composing ledes, the citations were partly a holdover from how I handled the lede for WAKR during its GAN process.
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    See below. Around 85% satisfactory.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig has copyvio at 18%, so unlikely.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: (see below)
    File:Flatiron_Building,_National_Tower_Building_and_WAKR_Radio.jpg, File:WAKR_1953_Sesquicentennial_parade.jpg, and File:WAKR_Hinky_Dinks.jpg all have problematic copyright statuses.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Image issues outstanding.
Nathan Obral, see above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I figured out a proper image replacement for the first image which completely shows the original transmitter mast. To avoid confusion, I altered the caption to read the building's current name (the Huntington Tower page itself needs to be addressed). The other two pictures have been excised. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

[edit]
  • 27 — article has "First Central Tower", source has "First National Tower"
That does need to be addressed in that respective article. As noted above with the image swap, I changed the caption to reflect the current building name.
  • 51 — good
  • 65 — ??? seemingly no relation
This might be because of how the citation needed to be composed; newspapers.com doesn't allow for a single page for multiple clippings, which could be helpful in this case as it was a two page article. Part two is here and was only visible in the page field as "F5" Both usages of this citation in the article came from this page:
  • Regarding "...Another alliance existed with the Akron Beacon Journal, as publisher Knight Newspapers—a forerunner of Knight Ridder—held a minority stake in Summit Radio from 1946 to 1977." -- WADC was not alone in claiming the market was saturated (when Berk applied for a radio station license between 1937 and 1940, see WAKR). The *Beacon Journal* did, too. "I can't say we need it," editorialized John S. Knight. Knight eventually changed his tune, becoming a financial partner in WAKR from 1946 to 1976. Toward the end, he wanted to buy out the Berks, and offered Roger Berk a directorship in Knight Newspapers. Berk turned him down, and soon Knight sold back his percentage. "Nobody wanted to own a minority share of a family company," Berk says today. This is also noted and cited in Knight-Ridder, as well as in the WAKR article.
  • Regarding "...and was later attributed as a deal made at the height of the mid-late 1980s junk bond frenzy" -- In retrospect, the timing was perfect: The sale came at the peak of a buying and selling spree that overtook the radio industry during the national junk bond frenzy of the 1980s. Prices have since dropped.
  • 70 — good
  • 102 — good
  • 115 — has a harv error, otherwise good
This is the Ted Henry citation? I installed HarvErrors.js and can't locate the error through Chrome or Edge. What's the error you're getting?
  • 184 — good
  • 192 — good
  • 206 — good
  • 217 — good

Prose review

[edit]
  • "Since August 31, 1998, the station has been a charter affiliate of Ion, going back to the network's past incarnations as Pax TV and i," is unclear
It is clunky and kludgy. The television network rebranded twice between 2005 and 2007 (going from Pax TV to i to Ion) and the station was owned by the network from its 1998 launch until 2021. Perhaps "The station has been an affiliate of Ion Television since it launched under the Pax TV name on August 31, 1998..." could work?
That seems better, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, along with a few minor tweaks to the lede. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I noticed one of the edits was sanitizing a NewsBank link; that database is weird, usually longer strings will make it available as a preview, while the shorter links require a login. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it would be something like that. However, it needs to be more clearly explained, as my initial thought was that Cusinamo/Boigegrain were the on-air handles, not the other way around, as seems to be the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I kept Boigegrain with new wording but ended up removing Cusimano. His obituary makes it mighty clear that he was known as Anthony in his entire professional career, even after leaving broadcasting in the 1980s. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's about it. Well done to you both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie and AirshipJungleman29: Indeed, I'm in agreement with the modifications (I overlooked Fred Anthony using his air name for other things after retiring, which indeed was the case). AirshipJungleman29, thank you so much for your assistance and time. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:53, 18 January 2023 (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.

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) 22:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Nathan Obral (talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie (talk) at 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC).[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
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: This nomination meets all the requirements. It is eligible, cited, of interest, and quid pro quo has been met. I'm assuming good faith on ALT 1's source since I can't access it. Lazman321 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WVPX-TV&oldid=1198895735"