Wikipedia:Peer review/DuMont Television Network/archive1

DuMont Television Network

I would like to get this article up to Featured Article status by the end of the year. I know references and such will be needed soon, but I'm more interested in obtaining feedback on how the article might be improved in terms of things like clarity, layout, consistency, WP:MOS, etc. Feedback (positive or negative) appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove "This would come back to haunt DuMont later." doesnt seem encyclopedic, leave foreshadowing for fiction novels.
Words you use I do not understand: "signed on" and "signed off", "hookups", "experimental" when referring to a station, "station-to-station link", "sign on", "coaxial cable", "radio network", "five-station cap", "go dark", "distressed" when referring to a station, "call letters". Search for these using CTRL + F

I suppose most of those should receive wikilinks. They're common terminology in "broadcast speak"; I'm glad you were able to point out areas that wouldn't seem clear to the "average" reader. I will certainly try to provide better explanations for their meaning, either in the article or by wikilinking.

Added {{fact}} templates, please replace with footnotes.

I will certainly do so.

"received a network license" what is a network license, and who gives them out? experimental stations dont need a license?

The FCC awards licences, but only awarded three for DuMont, five for each of the other networks. Part of this article tries to explain why this helped lead to the company's downfall, so it's really, really important.

Why through out the article is CBS and NBC constantly mentioned as comparison? Seems kind of pov to point thing out so much about whose better/faster/richer than who when?

I'll try to remove any POV, but it's not point of view to state NBC and CBS were companies with deep pockets: that's a fact. DuMont had no money, which, again, led to the end of the company.

"DuMont was an innovative and creative network" How?

The very next sentence explains how: "DuMont programmers had to rely on their wits and on connections in Broadway to provide original programs still remembered [today]."

"DuMont also holds another important place in American television history." again not encyclopedic but essay-like.
Some words that start a sentence bring down the encyclopedic tone: Instead, before then, Nevertheless, Also, In any case, etc.
I dont like when facts are crammed into brakets = " (including a fully-functioning theater)" please make them part of the sentence.

Easily done, thanks for pointing that out.

"Among some of DuMont's better-remembered programs:" Better remembered by who?

By the few people who remember the network at all.

Whats "Big Town"? no description for that program.

Will fix.

"so their programs got clearance only if the primary network" clearence for what? dont each network have its own channel?

No. As the article states, there weren't enough TV stations for four networks. In these earliest days of US television, the four networks had to compete for air time on local channels: whoever had the best-looking shows, and whoever had the most money to throw around, got the most air time. Most cities only had two or three television stations, which is why it's so important to note the wealth of NBC and CBS (see above).

The section titles seem very essay-like. Also i would put Programming, Halted at the start, The end in a "History" section. I would Put "Halted at the start" first. I would rename "Halted at the start" to "Beginning" or something less descriptive. I would also rename "The end" to "Closure"

Very good suggestions. I'll try to impliment them.

Very random sentence even though I undestand its ment to give an overal description of why it closed but still something you would put into an essay. "The FCC's Dr. Hyman Goldin said in 1960, "If there had been four VHF outlets in the top markets, there's no question DuMont would have lived and would have eventually turned the corner in terms of profitability. I have no doubt in my mind of that at all."
I think the article suffers from no path. The company time periods are scaterred around. Also a lot of analysis. Encyclopedic articles arent about analysis but about stating facts. Example most of "The end" section.
"What about the DuMont stations?" should be merged into a new or "The end" section.
"List of DuMont affiliates" better off as a wikilink in "See Also" or merged into existing section.

There is absolutely no way the list of affiliates will fit into this existing article: it would make it far too large. I can certainly change it to a See Also section.

Not trying to bring the article down but give suggestions. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate all of these suggestions. Thank you, Tutmosis. I'll try to impliment your suggestions into the existing article. Thanks for also adding the fact templates where you feel further references are needed. I'll work on all of this. I've commented more above. Again, thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks, semi-automated Ruhrfisch! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome - I am not a bot, but AndyZ used to do this with a bot and the suggestions are javascript generated so I use "semi automated". Anyway, hope it is helpful and of use, Ruhrfisch 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very helpful, thank you. :) I'll work these suggestions into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! Lead section could use a little more information about the network apart from its history - perhaps a notable show or personality associated with the network. If nothing else, note the network's innovation and creativity in the lead section. Recommend that you rewrite the informal/folksy portions of the lead section ("never found itself on solid ground financially","signed off for good") with clearer descriptions. Did they declare bankruptcy? Sell their assets? If unknown, perhaps "ceased broadcasting" Be on the lookout for representatives of the ASPCS (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Semicolons). Every one of your semicolons should be replaced with a colon or a period. dpotter 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Dpotter. I appreciate your suggestions for expanding and improving the lead. Your suggestions have been very helpful, because I already knew the lead was short, but lacked ideas on how to expand it. I did an automated search for semicolons, and found it used in only threesentences. The first one, DuMont began with one basic disadvantage; unlike NBC and CBS, it did not have a radio network from which to draw revenue and talent. can certainly be changed from a semicolon to a colon. The second one, DuMont aspired to grow beyond its three stations, applying for licenses in Boston (or Philadelphia, depending on the source) and Cincinnati; this would have given the network five stations, the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the time. doesn't make sense to replace with a colon, although I suppose it could be split into two sentences. WABD became WNEW-TV and later WNYW; WTTG still broadcasts under its original call letters. also would be strange with a colon. Anyway, thanks for the helpful advice. I'm working tonight to incorporate these suggestion into the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the lead needs to be expanded in order to fit in with guidelines at WP:LEAD. Titles such as "What about the DuMont stations?" seem a little chatty to me, and more inline cites would be nice. Interestingly enough, if the article was to get to FA status, it would be the first article about a television network to do so - but crib some tips from other GA network articles. CloudNine 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will work to expand the lead. I can change the title of the heading to something like "Fate of the DuMont stations" or something like that. There are already 43 in-line citations in this article. At some point, the footnotes become intrusive, and I'm not sure how many more reliable sources I can find for a forgotten network that has been dead for more than 50 years. Anyway, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]