Template:Did you know nominations/Local marketing agreement

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Local marketing agreement

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that some broadcasters are shutting down acquired television stations to dodge increased government scrutiny surrounding local marketing and joint sales agreements?

• Reviewed: Abyss Odyssey

Improved to Good Article status by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 23:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

• Can you please quote the passage from the article supporting the hook? I can't find it. Is there any way to breathe some life into this -- something about diversity of media voices or something? EEng (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• The entire Shutdown of stations section. But anyway, if you really want a different one: ViperSnake151  Talk  05:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT 1: ... that both opposition and support for the FCC's ban on joint sales agreements between television stations centered around minority-run companies?
  • ALT 2: ... that U.S. television broadcasters have used local marketing agreements to work around government policies regulating local media consolidation?

The hook needs to be found in the article in reasonably compact form, with an immediate cite. If an obvious text search won't find it in the article, please quote it here. Of the hooks so far I'd take Alt1, but that's IMO. EEng (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• • ALT 3: ... that the use of local marketing agreements to dodge FCC rules surrounding ownership of multiple broadcasters in a single market dates back as far as the 1970s?

I would prefer the shutdown one, but this may work too. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that hooks are set. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• All good!
  • New: Promoted to GA ✓
  • Long enough: ~4,500 chars ✓
  • Within policy
    • Neutral ✓
    • Inline citations ✓
    • Close paraphrasing ✓
  • Original Hook ✓
  • ALT 1 Hook ✓
  • ALT 2 Hook ✓
  • ALT 3 Hook ✓ (AGF offline source)
    • It isn't that easy to do a quick search to verify these hooks. You have to sit and read because this is a very involved and complex subject, involving the intricacies of bureaucracy and Byzantine regulations. GA notwithstanding, I would like to see a plainer, more direct article intro that gives the reader a better summary of what this is all about. Easier said than done -- it takes some talent to explain such a difficult story in plain English. But still meets DYK standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)