Talk:WTXF-TV/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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:04, 21 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.	Prose satisfies GA standards.
	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.	No issues.
	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.	I reviewed the matches over 10% found using Earwig's Copyvio detector. No concerns - matches are attributed quotes, titles, and phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "former Fox executive Preston Padden". No issues found during spot checks.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Appears from the article's structure and content that the main aspects are covered; I have no basis to doubt this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail seems appropriate for a GA.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There were a few reverted edits several months ago. No evidence of edit warring.
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.	Original link to the Kaufman image is dead, but no reason not to assume good faith on it being PD. Building image is CC. The logo is marked as PD on the basis that it "consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection" which seems reasonable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant. I think it's pretty obvious who Kaufman is in the picture, so am not suggesting that the caption give more details (like "seated right"). It's unfortunate that we probably don't have a source to identify the presenters.
	7. Overall assessment.

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Everything handled. Found a second ref to bolster the late 1970s financial claims. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Second tranche done. Notables need to have an article—and usually doing articles like this produces one or two AfDs of linked pages. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I really didn't have much to add during this review. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm pasing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Great to have so many linked sources for readers (and reviewers!)
• I see from WP:RSP that there is no consensus on whether The Daily Beast is a reliable source. If other sources can be found to support that info then great, but I don't see the use of the source in this article as a blocker to GA status.

Spot checks

• WIP returned the permit in May 1954, finding that building and operating the proposed station would be economically infeasible. - no issues. "economically infeasible" appears in one source but I think is acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
• Its attempts to pick up a similarly unaired NBC show were rejected because the station could not broadcast it in color - no issues. You could maybe mention and link I'll Bet, although that article is unreferenced.
• WTAF-TV continued to lose money in its first years under Taft, but it slowly improved its ratings and financial position over the decade - I think this is a bit of an extrapolation for what I see on pages 42-43; unless there is another part of the article I've overlooked.

• I'm happy with this after the tweaking. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• most of channel 48's former program inventory was purchased by WPHL-TV - I didn't see this supported in the cited sources.

• The additional source supports this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Paramount strongly criticized Fox's plans to pull its affiliation. It warned, "All affiliates of Fox should take note of the level of loyalty and commitment Fox has exhibited. Apparently Fox's loyalty only recognizes the partnership nature of a network affiliate's relationship when it is convenient to Fox's own economic interest." - no issues.
• Mediaweek reported that another station executive found Fox lacking "its customary vigor" in trying to close the WGBS-TV deal - no issues.
• The FCC approved the deal in August 1995, as well as a waiver for Fox to own WTXF-TV and WNYW in New York City simultaneously - no issues.
• In July 2023, at WTXF-TV's routine eight-year license renewal, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition ... Padden wrote, "...Fox has undermined our democracy and has radicalized a segment of our population by presenting knowingly false narratives about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. In my opinion, this type of reporting was a significant contributing factor to the riots in the Capitol on January 6, 2021." - no issues.
• the program's audience doubled in its first year on air - no issues.
• In 1999, Good Day Philadelphia was described by Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News as "chronically underperforming" in the ratings - no issues.
• In November 2008, after a trial between WCAU and WTXF, Fox Television Stations and NBC Local Media entered into an agreement to test a system that would allow stations owned by Fox and NBC to pool news resources ranging from sharing field video to sharing aerial helicopter footage, in an attempt to reduce costs - no issues.
• Previously, in 2020, an article in Philadelphia magazine spotlighted a conservative turn in senior management in news philosophy; the article, based on interviews with 10 current and former WTXF-TV staffers, described a newsroom that was "toxic", "racially offensive", and "socially intimidating" - no issues.

History

• Could add an nbsp in $200 million (i.e. $200 million)
• it was announced that the Phillies would move to channel 29 beginning in 1984 - feels to me like there should be an addition to specify that it was the coverage of the Phillies that would move, but if the current wording is usual in US English then no change required.
• the entire run of M*A*S*H, - I think M*A*S*H will probably be well-enough known by readers not to to need an intro, but I wonder if it might be worth including the point from the source that it was "a top syndicated show"?
• was hit with a contraction - maybe just "contracted"?
• what's the criteria for the list of Notable current on-air staff/Notable former on-air staff?
• The inclusion of later co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend seems a bit inconsistent with the other listed staff, but that may not be a problem.

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.