Talk:WBFS-TV

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:WBFS-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really enjoyed this one! On hold; over to you. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go. Could not find any concerns of close paraphrasing either myself.

File(s)

All images are relevant and have a valid public domain rationale.

Prose

• In the lead, "marking the fourth—and successful—attempt" – the successful line sounds out of place here. Should it be "first successful"? Otherwise I would just remove it.
  • Done
• Wikilink Miami as first mention in the body.
  • Done
• Wikilink UHF for unfamiliar readers.
  • Done and spelled it out
• "Gateway got a permit in 1964" – is a permit correct here? Earlier the article says the permit.
  • Changed
• "was used starting in 1974" reads a bit jagged to me. Could you rephrase it?
  • Reworded
• "programs, similar to what WKID-TV" – recommend using a semi-colon here instead of a comma as the sentence is quite long.
  • Reworded
• "until later in the year" – do we have a month for this? It would help to justify the 'no other activity' line.
  • Reworded
• Should the article in The Shlenker Group be capitalised? It is written in lowercase later.
• "The Grant Broadcasting System sold the Dallas" – this is the first time a Dallas station is mentioned.
  • Fort Worth, Dallas, you know, same thing basically in this content, but reworded.
• "the Grant-Shlenker group" – if this is the group's new name I would mention this fact in the previous sentence where Grant becomes the outright owner.
• Reworded to indicate it's not a name change
• This may be personal taste but I do not like how "Equally importantly, the Grant-Shlenker group was highly leveraged and ill-prepared for a slowdown in advertising" is formatted; IMO it makes sense to start with a slowdown in advertising and go on to say they were ill-prepared for this.
  • Reworded
• "Syndicators began to come calling at a group" – what does 'come calling' mean?
  • Reworded. They wanted their money!
• "largely as a leverage maneuver in bankruptcy court" – wikilink bankruptcy court here and unlink its subsequent mention in the next paragraph.
  • Done
• The Grant receivership sentence is long. Can "which was formally filed on October 13 and approved on March 30, 1988" be made its own sentence?
  • Done
• "resolving a schedule clearance problem" – any elaboration possible?
  • Reworded
• Is there a better way to phrase "soon-to-be created"? It just made me giggle a little reading it.
  • Used "forthcoming"
• Wikilonk Viacom and CBS.
  • Changed
• Wikilunk Doral.
  • Done
• "The morning newscast failed to gather ratings traction" – I do not think traction is right placed here.
  • Changed

Refs

Passes spotchecks on refs 5, 8, 23, 31, 38 and 50:

• For ref 11, where does it say that the call letters were assigned in January 1983?
  • New ref needed and added.
• Ref 19 appears to be a dead URL.
  • Newspapers.com problem. I have no idea what is going on here, and it's alarming (between Saturday and Sunday, some clippings became unavailable from the Lincoln Nebraska State Journal that I had for KUCV.) I can see the clipping on my end when I search for it, but I cannot link to it. Did they pull the publication? Archive link added here. The 4E clipping is also archived but I cannot include more than one archive link. If this is a broader issue, it could affect many more pages. I have contacted newspapers.com for more information.
    • This is the first time I have experienced this with more than one publication. The other time was WSWG where the newspaper was apparently scanned without final contract approval.
      • Certainly an interesting predicament. Hopefully this is resolved soon.
• In either refs 47 or 48 I could not quite verify the line "Of the 15 CBS Corporation-owned UPN affiliates, 11 were chosen as charter affiliates of The CW".
  • Reworded and added a ref.

Others

• Recommend Template:Use American English (optional)

@LunaEatsTuna: Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! Pass. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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 Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Florida TV station abruptly removed programs from its schedule after it became unable to pay distributors? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/100995733/in-an-unusual-move-channel-33-pulls-sho/
  • ALT1: ... that a Florida TV station was the most successful in its chain in 1986—and still lost $6.5 million? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/98514467/grant-says-losses-top-forecasts-1986-st/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/William Maldon

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WBFS-TV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Aarticle length and age are fine. No copyvio or plagiarism concerns. QPQ and Status updated to y. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Path2space: Welcome to DYK reviewing. I did a QPQ, so you need to mark "y" in the |qpq= field, and why is the status "again"? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Path2space: If the DYK is fine, you put "y" in the |status= parameter. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)