Talk:KTXA/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• What's the evidence that File:Milt Grant.jpg is PD as stated on the image page?
  • Just asked Nathan Obral (who uploaded it) in re: that matter.
• What makes unclebarky.com a reliable source?
  • @Mike Christie: Subject-matter expert. Ed Bark was a media columnist for The Dallas Morning News before starting his own website. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• "TXA's service, from ON TV, was hamstrung by the most intense competition in any STV market in the United States and by a dispute over adult programming and closed after two years": I know you have strong feelings about commas so I don't want to add one unilaterally, but I think this needs one after "programming".
  • Reworded to ", closing after two years".
• "After Shlenker's consortium signed a deal with Oak Industries, owner of the ON TV subscription television service, to outfit its proposed STV system in the Metroplex in 1979,[2] and on March 31, 1980, the FCC granted a joint settlement by which Block's group was reimbursed for its expenses and dropped out to allow the Shlenker group to be granted the construction permit" -- something is wrong with the syntax here (perhaps just "After" should be removed?), but in any case it's a long sentence that you might want to break up.
  •  Done
• "KTXA temporarily broadcast an advertiser-supported prime time schedule during that time": suggest "until that date" instead.
  •  Done
• "ON TV would run third in the Metroplex's subscription television wars": suggest "ran third" -- we're in linear narrative here.
  •  Done
• "In 1982, KTXA—already unwilling to cede more hours to subscription broadcasting—and Oak entered into a dispute over these broadcasts, which the station felt were indecent, and KTXA won in a court fight to uphold its right to cancel ON TV programs to which it objected—that also granted ON TV a win in terms of expansion." A bit convoluted; the three dashes feel like they're parenthetical, in which case they're mis-paired. And I don't understand what ON TV's "win in terms of expansion" refers to.
  • Tried to clarify this.
• "Taft, however, not only attracted a Fort Worth television station": what does this mean?
  • Reworded.
• "Bill Castleman, KTXA's general manager, believed that the station's programming costs—estimated at $30 million a year—had been inflated as part of a strategy by Grant to pump the station up for a buyer by increasing its programming inventory, which Taft had not anticipated". A couple of things here. "Inflated" can mean "deliberately increased" or "made to appear larger than in reality"; I think you mean the former. To avoid the ambiguity I'd make this something like "were high because Grant had increased spending as part of a strategy...". And what had Taft not anticipated? That the programming costs were high, or that the inventory was misleadingly large? I don't think "anticipated" is quite right in either case, because it means either to beat to the punch or to guess something that hasn't yet happened; neither meaning quite fits here since Grant's manoeuvring is in the past.
  • Grant increased programming costs deliberately so as to make the station more attractive to prospective buyers by widening its film library. (e.g. 6,000 titles sounds better than 4,000...and costs you more, too.) Tried to reword.
• "One source believed that": just a suggestion, but sometimes in these cases it's worth using the name of the source so the reader can evaluate it.
  • I would normally do so, but the source is anonymous in the source. At least one source believes TVX never wanted the Dallas station but grudgingly agreed to take it to get the four others in the group.
• Suggest linking "temporary cancellation of the football program" to Southern Methodist University football scandal.
  •  Done

Looks good, as usual. Also a reminder about WP:INDENTMIX; if you want to respond to a bullet (*), use "**" to produce a bullet, or "*:" to produce a further indent with no bullet. If you use ":*" it screws up screen readers and at deeper indent levels can leave random bullets at the left edge of the thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• •  Done ...This always screws me up, and I am trying to get better. Other copy edits have been done, Mike Christie. Working with Nathan on the image issue—it will ultimately be removed from Commons and reuploaded as fair use, as Grant died in 2007—so it can't be promoted at this moment (but once that's fixed, it will be promotable). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

    The thing that often seems to catch people out, as it did you here, is when there's a non-indented comment at the end of a list. If you then use two asterisks instead of one, you get two bullets at left, as you can see for your post -- that's one of the flags that INDENTMIX has been broken. Anyway, fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oops -- Sammi, just realized I promoted this with the image in place. I'll take it on faith that you'll fix it, or remove it if it can't be fixed. Sorry about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Thanks so much, Mike Christie. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)