Talk:WPBF/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: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Good day! I intend to review this article. Thank you for your continued good work with these articles. --Generalissima (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Images

Two images in article. 'WPBF_2021.svg' and 'FEMA - 38682 - FEMA PIO with Television media.jpg' are both in public domain and useful for the purposes of the article. All is good on this front.

Lede

Pretty decent lede. I would suggest adding the hasty construction and beginning of operations to the lede - a warehouse being turned into an operational news studio in two months would pique the interest of readers skimming the lede.

• Beefed up the lead section to have a bit more detail. Good idea.

History

Thank you very much for using clippings for the Newspapers.com-sourced citations.

All the sources I checked were accurately summarized. The prose is of particularly good quality and engaging - I can't say I have ever read about the negotiations behind the operations of a television station in my life, but it is presented in a way that made me want to keep reading. The context of how unusual reverse compensation was seen at this time and how rushed the initial setup of the station was gave useful context, and I'm sure will to readers as well.

I wish there would be more information in the Paxson and Hearst section on its history under Hearst ownership, but I understand if there is a relative paucity of sources on that matter compared to Paxson's tenure.

• I do too, but by this time a TV station article becomes really the news department and little else.

News operation

No real complaints with this section. The sentence "Founding news director Lee Polowczuk started on November 14, and within 50 days and after receiving hundreds of unsolicited audition tapes from around the country." is phrased a bit awkwardly, and might be best to split into two separate sentences. Other than that, nothing really springs to mind.

• Split a little more cleanly and reorganized this paragraph a little.

Technical information

Sure is technical information. The Analog-to-digital conversion part was interesting. I see no problems here.

Citations, external links, etc.

All seems in good order here. Linking to the station's website makes sense as an external link.

General thoughts

I think you just need to clear up the mentioned slightly messy sentence and add a little bit of context to the lede and things will be good to go for GA requirements. Thanks for the article! Generalissima (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Generalissima: Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your changes.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job! >:3

Generalissima (talk) 21:26, 8 November 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.