Talk:WWJ-TV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially, I have heard about Bill Bonds, who worked for one of the other stations in the Detroit area. Controversial figure. Anyways .... Creating this page, will fill with comments shortly.

@Rlink2: Any updates? It's been about three weeks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie Will fill out right now. I am extremely sorry for the delay, I should have gotten to this earlier. Rlink2 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: Since this is a joint nom between @Sammi Brie and myself, I'll be commenting with text formatted like this as a distinguisher. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 02:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Again, extremely sorry for the delay. For the replacements: if I don't provide the exact location use your browsers find feature

Is it well written?

Under common ownership with CW station WKBD-TV (channel 50), both stations share studios on Eleven Mile Road in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, while WWJ-TV's transmitter is located in Oak Park. Maybe this should be reworded a bit.
A suggestion would be something like WWJ-TV shares a studio with CW station WKBD-TV on Eleven Mile Road. I'm not sure that the Oak Road part is revelant, seeing how its not discussed much in the article. I'm not against including it, but it may make it harder to create a good sounding setnence with both pieces of info.

We've been dealing with a lot of issues about leads in TVS (after suggestions came up at GAN a couple of weeks ago). It's important to note they are commonly owned. Oak Park is mentioned later in the article and there is actually a photo of the site.
Yes, WKBD-TV and WWJ-TV have been commonly owned with shared studios for nearly 25 years. Maybe having (channel 50) is unnecessary, I'll take it off for now and see if that works better. ... under the CBS News and Stations group was added separately.

In the 2nd part of the lead I think using the TV station name is better than channel 62 in Detroit.

It's hard to do the way that sentence is structured at this time.
I'm probably going to have to think about it, but I agree with Sammi, a revision is going to be not that easy to do.

Ok, that is fine. It's not a big deal in the grand scope of things.

There should probably be a colon in between WGPR and It in the first paragraph of the 2nd section under "Built by Masons", to make it seem flowing. The sentence What made this action noteworthy was the nature of WGPR. all by itself doesn't necessarily flow.

Agreed and fixed.

A game show, Countdown, was to be hosted by Conrad Patrick, one of the 15 White employees on a staff of 48. The wording implies that they never went through with this. If so, it could be helpful putting the reason. If you cant put it in there, then maybe say "Conrad Patrick, one of the 15 white employees on a staff of 47, had planned to host a game show......"

It's unclear why. I see one mention of it being delayed and then it just drops off the radar.
Rephrasing makes sense, and done.

Is it necessary to blue link née in Amyre née Makupson?

{{nee}} does this, so I am imagining it is considered a standard.
I was trying to go by MOS:NEE as Amyre was identified and promoted by her maiden name when the station launched. I did switch the order around to be Amyre Markupson (née Porter) ...

I didn't know about MOS:NEE. That makes sense.

WGPR-TV's license renewal was briefly delayed in 1993, but for wholly unrelated reasons: it was one of seven television stations the FCC cited for failing to meet educational and informational standards in children's programming. When the reader see's the reason, it will become clear that its "wholly unrelated" so wouldn't it be better to just say WGPR-TV's license renewal was briefly delayed in 1993 because it was one of seven television stations the FCC cited for failing to meet educational and informational standards in children's programming. ?

Done.

those networks negotiated renewals with their stations should be both networks negotiated renewals with their stations so we know we are talking about ABC/NBC and not ABC/NBC/CBS. Also in the case of the latter, additional affiliations between ABC and Scripps-owned stations in other cities. can reworded to clearly specifiy WXYZ

Agree on both of those. The "other cities" remark is about stations in Phoenix, Tampa, and Baltimore. See KNXV-TV for a bit more explanation on this.
I've reworked it like this: First, the network attempted to woo the NBC and ABC affiliates, WDIV-TV and WXYZ-TV, away from their existing alliances. It failed to do so; both NBC and ABC negotiated renewals with their stations that increased network compensation payments as much as four- to fivefold.[100] In the case of ABC's renewal with WXYZ-TV, additional contracts were secured with stations owned by WXYZ's parent company Scripps-Howard in several other cities.

If the term "LMA" is only used twice, then remove the abbreviation paranthesess and spell it out the 2nd time you use it the commission recognized that the terms of the local marketing agreement showed George Mathews still holding control over channel 62's programming,

Done.

Another objection was filed that had little to do with the Detroit station by a Ukrainian-American man from Troy, Michigan, who claimed that a report on 60 Minutes was distorted and inaccurate. this could be phrased better. Maybe A Ukrainian-American man from Troy filed a complaint regarding an report on 60 Minutes that he thought was inaccurate, even though 60 minutes was not produced by WGPR-TV.

Done. I added ... even though 60 Minutes was produced by CBS News and not WGPR-TV.

Surviving episodes of The Scene, totaling 300, were rebroadcast starting in January 1995 could be rephrased to The 300 surviving episodes of The Scene were rebroadcast starting in January 1995

Done. I phrased it as 300 surviving episodes of The Scene instead of The 300 surviving episodes of The Scene as it didn't feel grammatically correct.

While CBS faced many challenges in its effort to make WWJ-TV competitive—David Poltrack, the executive vice president for planning and research for the CBS stations, called Detroit "the toughest situation for us" in the country, and CBS ratings fell 46 percent year-over-year[148]—the physical plant was among the largest needed improvements. should be CBS faced many challenges in its effort to make WWJ-TV competitive—David Poltrack, the executive vice president for planning and research for the CBS stations, called Detroit "the toughest situation for us" in the country, and CBS ratings fell 46 percent year-over-year[148]. The physical plant was among the largest needed improvements, and channel 62 had an inadequate signal now that it was a market-wide network affiliate.

Done. Instead of ...in its effort to make WWJ-TV competitive—David Poltrack... I opted for ...in its effort to make WWJ-TV competitive: David Poltrack..

In the lead:

However, the station has made only brief and partial attempts at producing local newscasts in its more than 25 years under CBS ownership, at times holding a dubious distinction as the only station directly owned by either of the "Big Three" networks not to have any news presence.. It's my impression from the article WWJ still doesn't have a news program (they are starting one but it hasn't come on the air yet). If so, then it would make sense to remove the "at times" and use the word "significant" before the word "news" (not to have any significant news presence).

This is a correct impression, but they were also the only Big Three-owned station without news at other times in their history and this has not been the case for the entire time they've been a CBS affiliate.
One possible way to say it could be... From assuming the affiliation in 1994 to 1999, from 2002 to 2009 and again from 2012 onward, WWJ-TV holds a dubious distinction as the only station directly owned by either of the "Big Three" networks not to have any significant news presence. Think that could work?

Yes, this is better.

although the network continued to evaluate options. should be although the network continued to evaluate other options.

Done.

@Rlink2: This should hopefully cover all the outstanding parts here. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan Obral: Responded to your comments. Sammi said she's busy so I'll wait for her comments. Rlink2 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2, I had already responded to some, and Nathan looks like he picked up the rest. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie @Nathan Obral

I gave it another look, and everything seems fine to me. I made minor copyedits, feel free to revert any of them if you think its not necessary. Other than that, looks ready for promotion to me. Rlink2 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting is something you do at GA by editing the talk page, @Rlink2... WP:GA/I Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie

I know, I'm saying I'm ready to do that. The more accurate wording should have been "looks ready to be passed" than "promoted". I think it's ready for passing, because I think all issues have been resolved. I just wanted to give you two the opporunity for any last words before I pass the GA ;) Rlink2 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: No worries! Just took a look at the copyedits, and I think everything should be resolved and ready to go. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: Everything looks good. Thank you so much for the review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem, sorry for the delay. In the future I will make sure to complete the review shortly after opening the page and not 3 weeks. Rlink2 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?

Most sources are from old newspapers, which I guess is because its dealing with a different part of history. Looks relaible though. No problems with citing templates or anything of that sort. And all links archived (not an actual requirement but I personally think its nice).

Is it broad in its coverage?

Yes.

Is it neutral?

Yes, everyones viewpoint was represented fairly I would say. But again, this is not the type of article for people to push biased stuff on. Maybe in the lead, instead of made only brief and partial attempts use made multiple unsucessful attempts and remove the However at the beginning of that sentence.

@Rlink2: Said sentence is rephrased. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

yes

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

yes, with relevant tags and metadata.