Talk:WLFL

Fair use rationale for Image:Wlfl.jpg

Image:Wlfl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wlflwb22.jpg

Image:Wlflwb22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be reviewing this article. I aim to get my comments done within a week. Steelkamp (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well written

• Don't link association football in the hatnote as per WP:HATEXTRA.
• I recommend adding a non-breaking space before p.m. as per MOS:AMPM.

History

• They had hoped... I would change this to The company had hoped... due the ambiguity of whether this refers to the company or the FCC.
• That June, the FCC then let them move back to channel 22. I recommend simplifying to That June, the FCC let them move back to channel 22.
• ...which then discontinued its plans for WJHF. I recommend simplifying to ...which discontinued its plans for WJHF.
  • All items to here done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Light for Living

• ...which it had used since 1954 was about to vacate... Suggest changing to ...which it had used since 1954 and was about to vacate...
  • Oops.

TVX and Paramount ownership

• Is there somewhere that WPTF-TV can link to?
  • Made this unnecessary by linking the first non-lead mention of channel 28

Sinclair ownership and loss of Fox affiliation

• ...Sinclair to combine the two stations' operations under a local marketing agreement... I don't think this part makes grammatical sense.
  • @Steelkamp: Read local marketing agreement. It's basically a joint operating agreement but for TV stations. This is not going to change.
    • I think its the whole sentence I'm having trouble parsing. Could the sentence be changed to this: Nearly simultaneously, Sinclair provided capital for Communications Corporation of America to buy WRDC, then the NBC affiliate (but about to lose its NBC affiliation and switch to UPN). Sinclair combined the two stations’ operations under a local marketing agreement, with Sinclair providing CCA 98 percent of the money to buy channel 28.
• ...the company apparently had little confidence in Fox plans to expand to late night and early morning slots as well as in the area of news. I suggest changing to ... Sinclair apparently had little confidence in Fox plans to expand to late night and early morning slots as well as in the area of news.
• In the second paragraph of this section, I think it should be explicitly mentioned that WLFL (seemingly) became an affiliate of The WB.
  • Big omission. Thank you.

CW affiliation

• Amid the transition from The WB to The CW, Sinclair also wound down News Central... Suggest simplifying to Amid the transition from The WB to The CW, Sinclair wound down News Central...
  • All items to here done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical information

Verifiable with no original research

• References checked: 8, 9, 14, 25, 38, 44, 56, 59, 60, 64, 65.
• Reference 59 is dead for me (it redirects to a different website).

Illustrated, if possible

• Glad to see the logo is below the threshold of originality. That makes things a bit easier than writing a NFUR!
• I'm sure you know this, but it would be good if there were a photo of the studio building or the transmitter. That will not hold me from promoting of course.
  • Yeah, that's a toughie in a lot of cases. Seriously, though, if someone in Raleigh saw this, it would be useful and could go in several articles (including another planned GA, WRDC). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

General

I've done a source review now. Only a minor thing there, and I have responded to one comment in the prose review as well, so there are two outstanding issues. I'll put the review on hold now. Steelkamp (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ref 59 is dead because they threw out the baby with the bathwater, @Steelkamp, in some CMS changes. It's now [1]. NextTV is the same thing as Broadcasting & Cable by publisher; all its articles now live at that domain. I also reworded the LMA sentence, which somehow had wound up with double semicolons. Not good. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)