Talk:WZZM

Newscast Times and Hours

This information is commonplace to nearly every news producing station in the nation. There are literally too many of these stations with this information listed to name here. User:Mvcg66b3r should respect this fact and stop removing this information unless a site wide effort is taken to remove it from all television station pages. There is no reason to single out this page for attack and not have the information listed. Reason WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not apply as this is not a program guide for the station, but a cited list of news productions similar to publishing schedule for a newspaper or list of productions for a national outlet like CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.8.48.8 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: What's your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

First place I went was to see if the issues and programs list had this info—sometimes you do get lucky. It doesn't. We're not a TV guide. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r compromise edit is fine with me. This is just very common information across the site, and I feel it needs to be listed on the page to some degree. 167.8.48.8 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't point it to a reliable source in most cases. I've been rewriting dozens of pages on TV stations to Good Article standard (in this market, WZZM and WOTV so far). And there is no RS I can use to cite that information in many cases. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Here are my comments^^ Arconning (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning Done. I have some heavy RL right now, so clip scouring is not my highest priority. I do have additional material in GenealogyBank as well, but I can do that at any time in the coming days. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

• in order protect, in order to protect.
• While the station continues to be competitive, add comma at the end.
• have given the overall edge to WOOD-TV, might be too informal. Otherwise, have given WOOD-TV the overall edge.

History

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC), add comma at the end.
• and presided, add over.
• and Holland also were, and Holland were also.
• with construction of the station., add the after with.
• Gannett sent Argyle the, Gannett sent Argyle to the.
  • You misread this one: the stations were sent to Argyle.
• until being removed, until it was removed.

The Battle Creek–Kalamazoo problem

• I suggest somehow splitting the first paragraph into two at least, so that it could probably be read better by other viewers.
• from their schedule, pluralize schedules.
• brokerage agreement by, change by to in.
• in June 1992 when WOTV became WOOD-TV., add comma after 1992.

News operation

• three hours on Saturdays, add comma at the end.
• revenue leader for most its, revenue leader for most of its.
• Price, a Republican, wikilink Republican.
• changes in the newsroom., possibly change in to to.

Technical information

• No issues, pass.

Images

• Images have proper licenses and have proper captions. Pass.

Refs

• Earwig picks up like 2%, nothing weird at first glance. Pass
• Manual check, everything seems okay! Pass.

Spotchecks

• References 5, 30, and 41 are okay for random checks.
• All references come from pretty reliable sources.
• If you could find online links for the sources that don't have them, that would be nice. Though a source is a source, pass.

Misc.

• No ongoing edit war, pretty broad information about the topic, neutral. Pass.

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

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The WZZM weatherball

• ... that a Michigan TV station rescued and restored a weather ball (pictured) that had been sitting for years in a scrapyard? Source: Heibel, Lawrence R. (March 28, 2002). "Weather ball may sit on pole by station: WZZM TV-13 is seeking a zoning variance to build the new home for the stainless steel sphere". The Grand Rapids Press. p. A25. (Available upon request)
  • ALT1: ... that the owner of a Michigan TV station ordered its news director out of bed to give him personal election reports? Source: https://search.proquest.com/docview/216739809
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sud 777

5x expanded by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 693 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article nominated two days after promotion to GA. Passes Copyvio check. Picture is free use. QPQ done. AGF on ALT0 offline source. I prefer ALT0, it's more interesting. Riley1012 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)