Talk:WXLV-TV/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Vaticidalprophet 03:51, 19 November 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.

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 15:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the TVX articles on my phone last night wondering if any were interesting, checked this one, and ended up reading through the whole thing in one go. Review will follow ~within a week; I don't expect to have much to say. Vaticidalprophet 15:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an independent station and Fox affiliate

The station's programming turned out to be more general-entertainment than the religion-heavy, family-friendly lineup once advertised doesn't quite get across the source -- "general entertainment" is too ambiguous a term. The station did air religious programming, but it also specifically aired things with stronger content than it had previously implied it would.
May be worth mentioning that the Simms brothers intentionally overpaid for the station?
The mention in cite 15 of just how bad their ratings was seems worth adding :)
Speaking of cite 15, I'm not exactly seeing "stronger shows", though it's implied. They wanted to ditch the "syndicated reruns, old movies and religious programming" (who wouldn't) and be...hipper, I guess, but we can't predict how that worked out from that source alone. "Stronger" is also imo ambiguous between "less family-friendly" and "better-performing" -- I originally read it the former way before realizing it was probably meant to be the latter.
The call letters were also changed to WJTM-TV doesn't need "also".
Are you intentionally not naming the gunman?
- Yes. I will address this in a longer aside below.
the two stations and the Christian program The 700 Club (aired on both stations) is sort of clunky.
It may be worth intentionally mentioning that the kidnapped employee was a secretary/not someone in charge of programming decisions? I assumed a more targeted attack before checking the source.
The article on the shooting seems to be multi-page, but only one page is clipped. Does the other one explain how the fake broadcast worked? I came away not entirely sure how they did that when reading the article pre-review.
- Which one? I can easily go back and clip the missing page, but I don't see any article missing a page here.
it expected to have to sell the smaller-market WNRW to complete the purchase, as the two stations had overlapping signals assumes a bit more pre-knowledge than the general reader necessarily has.

WXLV-TV: ABC affiliate

While channel 45 staffed up its newsroom, it also was sold is clunky.
the Boston buyout firm named Dan Sullivan -- maybe I was skimming too hard, but this took me a moment :) We don't clarify beforehand that ABRY Broadcast Partners is a Boston buyout firm, and this seems an awkward place to do so.
- Removed.
Eleven years after the murder of William Rismiller, the station also sought to change its call letters -also
To save money, in March 1997, WXLV had discontinued its morning newscast. After the sale to Sinclair, the company restored the morning news and also bought new equipment for the station. The "in March 1997" part flows better at the end of the sentence, and again that "also" isn't needed for clarity. (In general, watch uses of "however" and "also". I'm not a partisan against them the way some editors are, but their signal-to-noise ratio is weaker than most words.)
At 10 p.m., the WUPN newscast attracted two percent of the audience to 15 percent viewing WGHP -- missing "compared to" or similar? ("The 10 p.m. WUPN broadcast [...] compared to 15% for WGHP's broadcast" or similar seems a bit better-flowing than trying to clarify "at 10pm" at the beginning. Also, as an aside, MOS:% was recently restructured to allow both "percent" and "%" in non-technical articles versus the previous take of "percent" only, so if your personal preference goes % that's allowed now.)
Though, having said that, is that one even in-scope for this article? It leans a little into "callsign salad" (not entirely avoidable for these articles, but can be mitigated) with the downside that none of the callsigns are actually WXLV's. Only one of the two sources is available, so it's trickier to crossref source-text here. Could this be glossed in a less callsign-salad way by generally noting that it wasn't a very successful enterprise?
- I have added the clipping for this one. The Winston-Salem Journal was only available to me by NewsBank when this article was written. It is now full-run in Newspapers.com, as are the Greensboro papers. (This year I wrote WTOB-TV, which was impossible without the new paper additions, into this market.) I would note that the Journal article is similarly call sign–heavy in this segment.
However, the transaction was designated in July 2018 for hearing by an FCC administrative law judge, and Tribune moved to terminate the deal in August 2018 -- does this need "however"?

Putting on hold. Vaticidalprophet 21:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Resolved most issues and responded to others. @Vaticidalprophet: Oops, must try again. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet Decided to name the suspect after rereading BLPCRIME. I think that it's glaring enough an omission to be necessary, unfortunately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not naming the shooting suspect

The man who committed the 1984 WJTM shooting and hostage situation is named Ronnell Leverne Jackson and is alive. He was convicted and apparently paroled by at least 2019.

Last year, I wrote KBRH in Baton Rouge, where I made a decision not to name the subject who killed the station owner but was not convicted. I made this decision because of some circumstances unique to the Baton Rouge case (gay panic defense!).

Tamzin told me when I sought advice in WP:DISCORD, Anything after conviction, other than evidence that causes RS to question the validity of the conviction of itself, doesn't restore the BLPCRIME presumption of not naming. On this advice, I opted not to name him. If you believe the conviction merits his name being listed, let me know.

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.