Talk:WRLH-TV

Fair use rationale for Image:MyTV Richmond.JPG

Image:MyTV Richmond.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) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Original transmitter location: anachronism

Does anyone have a source to confirm the location of the original transmitter? Route 288 wasn't even planned for its current location in 1982 -- as late as 1988 it was planned to go through the center of the village of Midlothian (Mt. Pisgah UMC's front parking lot, to be precise). The reference needs to at least say "the current intersection", but I'd like sourcing first. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 16:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. Comments to follow in the table below Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 16:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie I have completed the initial review. It's almost there, just a few questions from me and some suggestions. Thank you for your work on this article and the topic as a whole! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 18:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Unexpectedlydian: Thank you for the review. I should have responded to everything by this point.

@Unexpectedlydian: It'd help if I signed this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Thank you for addressing the changes, and apologies for my delayed response. Very happy to promote this to GA, well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 22:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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.	Lead Y History I wonder if "The ownership carousel" is maybe a bit too symbolic for a subheading. Would something like "Ownership alterations" or "Changing ownership" work a bit better? Fell free to leave as is if there's no suitable alternative. "The ownership carousel kept spinning for WRLH-TV." Again, this is maybe a bit too metaphorical. Yeah, good call. Fixed both. Just want to check I understand this right: "By February 1988, WVRN-TV had four percent of the market to five percent of the audience watching WRLH-TV." Does this mean that WVRN-TV had four percent of the market of WRLH-TV and five percent of the audience watching WRLH-TV? Is there a way to reword this to make it clearer? Done. Again, would like to check my understanding here: "Busse Broadcasting was originally announced to be owned by Busse and a trust set up for George N. Gillett Jr.'s children". Does this mean that Busse Broadcasting was going to be owned by Busse and also serve as a trust for the children? Is there a way to reword this to make it clearer? No, it means that there were two owners of Busse: Busse (the guy) and a trust. Newscasts Y Technical information Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead Y Layout Y Words to watch See section 1b regarding certain phrases. Fiction N/A List incorporation Y
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.	Sources are referenced in the appropriate place.
	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).	Source spot-check Durden, Douglas (June 14, 1981). I can't see where the source explicitly states that WRLH stands for Richmond, Loving and Hudson. The names are mentioned, but the link to the call letters are not. Turns out that's the wrong ref. You want [1]. "WRLH-TV starts broadcasting". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Y "Company to sell WRLH, 2nd station". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Y Durden, Douglas (September 16, 1988). Was the Act III president called Bert Ellis or U. Bertram Ellis Jr (as per the newspaper article)? U. Bertram Ellis Jr. is more commonly known as Bert in industry media (unrelated example). (The guy might justify an article; he's on the UVA Board of Visitors, and coverage of his capacity there also uses Bert.) Battaglio, Stephen (May 8, 2017). Is the implication that WTVR-TV was one of 42 TV stations of Tribune media? (WTVR-TV is not mentioned in the LA Times article). Yes. "Digital TV Market Listing for WRLH-TV". RabbitEars. I can't see the aspect ratio information in the source. The (w) next to video that is 480i indicates widescreen. The 720p is assumed 16:9. Durden, Douglas (May 16, 1980). Y "In Brief" (PDF). Broadcasting. Y "Closed Circuit" (PDF). Broadcasting. Y Morgan, Richard (February 25, 1998). Y Flint, Joe (August 9, 2018). Y "FCC TV Spectrum Phase Assignment Table" (CSV). Federal Communications Commission. This source is confusing for someone (like me!) who is coming to the topic fresh. Is there a clearer source which explains that the signal change was due to the 2016 wireless spectrum auction? Because as far as I can see, the current source alone does not imply that. Yeah, it's a CSV. I was lucky to find a better source for the causality side of this.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is cited. I am also content from conducting source spot-checks that no widespread OR has occurred.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I am content from conducting source spot-checks that there has been no copyright vio or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The history and other main aspects of the topic are addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article content is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit-warring or instability.
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.	Images are tagged and valid usage is provided. Alt descriptions are also provided.
	7. Overall assessment.