Talk:WFTV/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 05:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Three explanations for another one. To prevent the GAN backlog from going into the red, the Orlando, Florida market is familiar to me, and to keep the streak along with the familiar television stations article reviews I have already completed. I might review another one, depending on the situation. If you get tired of my reviews, feel free to tell me off after this one, haha. This review will be done either Sunday, August 20 or Monday, August 21. Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am only sending up pages since I have a massive backlog myself. I have another 130 or so pages to bring to GAN. Some comments from me. This station had a tortuous early history and is really unlike anything I have written in that regard. Also, unfortunately there are no available free-use images related to the station, which is a shame because of the volume of text this article has. (I look for images as part of any article overhaul.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Holy, 130. That is amazing and boggles my mind, haha. Well done on the goal and what you have accomplished so far! I think the max I have pushed out articles for GA consistently was 11 at one time and in the same breath. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

---

The suggestions for prose are as follows:

Prose

Lead

• WFTV (channel 9) is a television station in Orlando, Florida, United States, affiliated with ABC. might read better as WFTV (channel 9) is a television station affiliated with ABC in Orlando, Florida, United States.
  • Not a bad idea, though we don't have many leads written like that
• It had originally been granted ... could be simply It was originally ...
• However, in the same year the station went on the air ... could be simply However, the same year the station went on air ...
• Under a court order, Mid-Florida ceded operational control of WFTV in 1969 to Channel Nine of Orlando, Inc., which was a consortium of the five companies vying for the full-time broadcast license. In this instance, "which was" could be omitted.
• Many of their 67 shareholders became millionaires when SFN Companies purchased WFTV in 1984 as part of its expansion into the broadcasting industry. might read better as Many of their 67 shareholders became millionaires when SFN Companies purchased WFTV in 1984 to expand into the broadcasting industry.
  • No: they had already bought another company in broadcasting.
• WFTV, though it has faced renewed ratings competition since 2000, continues to lead ratings in the Orlando–Daytona Beach market. may read better as Although WFTV has faced renewed ratings competition since 2000, it continues to lead ratings in the Orlando–Daytona Beach market.

History

Permitting and construction

• Over the course of 1952 ... could simply be Throughout 1952 ...
• ... there were seven groups seeking three channels ... might read better as ... seven groups were seeking three channels ...
• three channel 9 as three-channel 9 for clarity on application and not number of stations?
  • three applicants for channel 9
• ... believing the FCC to have overemphasized positives of WLOF's application Possible missing word "the" before "positives".
• WLOF-TV began broadcasting on February 1, 1958, as the second station in Orlando itself. I would omit "itself" here.
  • No. Someone will say "where's WESH?" But WESH hadn't yet really moved into Orlando.

Ex parte influence scandal

• As WLOF-TV was getting on the air, a scandal exploded into view involving the FCC's decisions in several contested television station cases. I would move the modifier "exploded into view" to the end of the sentence for better reading.
• The resulting congressional investigation uncovered other cases of ex parte communications between ... "cases of" may be redundant here.
  • Not quite, since there might be multiple communications in one case.
• Among the proceedings investigated by the committee was that of channel 9 in Orlando could be simply Among the proceedings, the committee investigated channel 9 in Orlando as the extra words compound the former.
  • The "that of" is needed here still.
• Stephen J. Angland, investigator for the committee ... Possible missing word "the" before "investigator".
• ... the FCC showed openness to this request in February 1959 and announced it would do so in March pending the appeals court proceedings could use a comma after "March".
• To avoid repetition among succeeding sentences, I would replace "recommended" in He also recommended that Mid-Florida be ... with "suggested".
• ... the FCC filed a report with the Court of Appeals noting that the grant should be reconsidered though there was no wrongdoing by Mid-Florida officials because they were not aware of what Dial had done ... "not aware" to "unaware"?

Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator

• ... claiming that the commission could not reverse some of the findings in the 1961 Cunningham report concerning credibility of witnesses Possible missing word "the" before "credibility".
• ... or possibly be reopened for new applicants for the channel I would omit "be" here as extra word.
  • No. be continued, go, be reopened.
• The suggestion of reopening the channel 9 file was taken up by the FCC's Broadcast Bureau, which urged the commission to take new applications, though commission members were said to be unenthusiastic. I would consider breaking this sentence into two for better emphasis and create a less-lengthy statement, likely at "... new applications. However, commission members ..."
• to not be to not to be for better modifier usage?
  • leaving this here because "as to" takes precedence
• ... the court agreed with the Broadcast Bureau and with the losing applicant that the record was stale. I would omit the second "with" as redundant.
• In March 1965, the case was returned to the FCC for a third time, this time with orders ... "this time" may be redundant here.
• Since there are uses of semi-colon lists in the article, I would make the bullet list here into prose passages instead of the current.
  • I am not doing this because the number of applicants is large. I do not want people to get totally lost in this list, which is really important to understand everything between 1966 and 1981.
• Though the Murrells filed with their new company, in September, ... I would omit the first comma before "in" for better flow.
  • No, the withdrawal was in September.
• ... the FCC designated the case for a full comparative hearing of the applicants' qualifications "applicant's" instead of "applicants'"?
  • The qualifications of ALL of the applicants.
• ... after Orange Nine's exit, Comint had joined the consortium "had" may be redundant here.
  • It's unclear when Comint joined.

Channel 9 case in the 1970s: Minority ownership and Martin Segal

• The initial decision was appealed ... It might be worth to note who did the appeal here.
  • Not in the source.
• ... he had become a paraplegic to ... he had developed paraplegia? I read this sentence fully now to know it was not developed, but from an attack. "Paralyzed" might work better here though than "paraplegic". I am not sure if the latter term is used anymore.
  • Not changing as "paraplegic" is still used and it's all over the refs about Segal.
• The ruling pertaining to minority ownership ... "on" could replace "pertaining to" here for simplicity.
  • Left it here and made it clear the FCC was eyeing one specific aspect.
• justice Harry Blackmun I believe you capitalize "Justice" since it is a title.
• By this time, the case was a substantial source of paper records and attorneys' fees "By this time" may be redundant here.
• The collapse had a substantial impact on ratings for the three local stations: unaffected WESH took the lead in news ... Comma before "WESH"?
  • Reworded.

Settlement and sale to SFN

• That October, the five companies filed the outlines of a settlement agreement between them which would see the station ... "which would" to simply "to".
  • As it wasn't yet approved.
• ... while the United Church of Christ was reimbursed for nearly $35,000 in legal fees it might be important to note who reimbursed them for their legal fees because of the section's length. Readers might need a refresher.
• After the settlement was approved, ... as with the above comment.
  • By the FCC, which is in the preceding sentence.
• ... James Robinson of Comint estimated that he had fielded 30 inquiries as to purchasing the station. "as to" to "about"?
  • Reworded another way.

Cox ownership

• ... which had been criticized for purchasing the station in the first place: ... it might be important to know who criticized them here.
• Though Ocala and Marion County are drawn into the Orlando market, in this area WFTV's signal overlaps with WCJB-TV of Gainesville it might read better to put "in the area" at the end of the sentence.
• The following sentence, "so as to" to simply "to".

News operation

• Several efforts were made to improve the situation; ... might be worth to know who made efforts here. Probably the station but I am skimming.
• Even though the newscasts were facing ratings difficulties ... "ratings" to "rating"?
  • No.

References

• 84, has the [1] link where I am sure a page number would be.
  • I was missing a space after the URL. Oops!
• 99, "OrlandoSentinel.com" to "Orlando Sentinel" or "The Orlando Sentinel" for consistency.
  • Done. Note: the masthead changed in the early 2000s to drop the "The", which is actually in one of the Mediaweek citations. In the 1970s and early 80s, the paper was published as the Sentinel Star after the morning and evening publications merged.
• 128, 129, 154, & 158, retrieval dates for URL?

---

Additional comments or concerns

• MOS:DUPLINKs "WESH", two instances in "News operation". "Eyewitness News" in same section.

Alrightly, in terms of skim-throughs it was pretty solid. I will complete the rest of the read-through tonight or in the morning. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• In the lead: A wide range of issues came under discussion, including what Mid-Florida knew about the ex parte contact; what preference should be given to minority ownership of broadcast stations; and the character of a lawyer who was partially paralyzed in a murder-suicide and indicted on gambling charges in the same week. I like the context, but for lead length and purpose, it should be trimmed to just the overview ideas of the station as the previous sentence would suffice. The dirty deets are examined later.
  • Disagree. This article is long enough to support that beefy lead.
• In subsection "Permitting and construction", WORZ immediately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ... I would remove "immediately" here as not needed.
• In "Ex parte influence scandal", I feel like "hearing examiner" should be wikilinked but I am not a law expert or conduit of that knowledge, so I am not sure where an appropriate link should be made.
  • No appropriate target.
• For the section "Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator" first paragraph, I would specify which Court of Appeals and which Supreme Court the passage pertains to, as it could be the state's court system or federal.
  • All of these cases went to the D.C. Circuit. They are spelled out with their full names on first mention. I did add one later.
• In subsection "Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator", In the wake of that order, in lieu of appealing ... to In the wake of that order and in lieu of appealing ...?
• In subsection "Channel 9 case in the 1970s: Minority ownership and Martin Segal", it might be worth noting which court again A year later, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ... this passage entails.
• ... which at the time was 25 percent Black clarification may be needed here on what aspect 25 percent of the demographic entails. Did the population of broadcast media (in the Orlando market) consist of 25 percent of Black Americans?
  • No, the population of the city of Orlando. Added "a city" here for clarity.
• If the passage takes a quote from a quote, double quotes per MOS:QINQ. I say this because of the "tasteless monstrosity" quote, but I cannot look at the source.
• A new transmitting tower at Bithlo had been proposed since 1966 as a joint venture with WDBO-TV, this was activated in 1970, replacing the mast at its Orlo Vista site. Starting with "this", it should be a new sentence.
  • I intended a semicolon.
• Same subsection, ... third-place WFTV remained in third "third-place" may be redundant here as the latter states "remained".
  • Good idea.
• In "News operation", ... in April 1997.[133] under a news share ... Capitalization here?
  • Removed the stray sentence fragment
• In "Technical information", ... WFTV was the first Orlando station to broadcast a digital signal, beginning in April 2001,[151] WFTV ended programming ... Might be an instance where WFTV should be the start of another sentence. If so, punctuation here.
  • Oops.
• For note B. Shouldn't notes have a reliable source cited even for an explanation of statements unless otherwise linked to another article for context?
  • Added

Alright, the full-read through was also good. I want to re-read the court case history a bit again. The former half looked fantastic and on point. The latter half I might suggest some trimming. Other than that, the content was informational and insightful. I will do spotchecks as well soon. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check: ... promising a "vigorous expression of its qualifications" in the FCC proceedings. The article is quoted as "vigorous presentation of its qualifications".
• Spot check: ... also hired some of the station's most recognizable personalities in the decades that followed, including anchors Bob Opsahl and Vanessa Echols I can confirm Opsahl from its source but not Echols. Opsahl does state he was hired by him explicitly while Echols only praised Bob for is encouragement and leadership.

@Sammi Brie: Besides the above-noted spot check, good, good. Fixes good, and explanations of rejection are good per reason and policy/guideline. So far, I would make sure to use double quotes where needed, possibly using {{" '}} and/or {{' "}} temps for quotes within a quote; as there are several instances in the prose. Spotchecks were mostly good. Otherwise, I think the latter section was good. I do not think you could reduce it much further without key parts missing for context. After these spot checks are changed, I think we are good to pass! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adog Everything handled. Moved Echols out of that space which was incorrect. First one was a typo. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well written + verifability

The article is well written with suggestions taken care of. Sammi Brie is on top of things as always. The manual of style is followed for TV stations. The reference layout is looking good with only minor fixes to be had. The article cites from a variety of reliable sources, no doubts there. Besides a few spot checks, there were no major or outstanding issues in the original research. Earwig looks good here against plagiarism/copyright/close paraphrasing. I would change the statement "operate under the name Terrier Media", if at all, not a major issue. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad in scope covering many aspects of the TV station's inception and ownership dealings. The article is well versed in its focus, there is attention to lots of detail here that is necessary for ongoing paragraphs. In terms of neutrality, as is the case with any type of political/court cases, are usually iffy. However, I think the editor here did a very well good job of balancing views. I think the arguments were well presented, and everyone (in the past) got a voice here, and are exceptional for due weight. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Image + stability

The one image is good. Nothing much or more to say, it is the logo. The article is stable, no active or ongoing edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:19, 21 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.