Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead: will need to comment on completeness later.
• the station has slipped from second to third in news ratings. this sentence seems to need more context: ratings among what? TV stations in Florida? In West Palm Beach?
• WPEC: we have success provided the funding to acquire WPEC before changed its call sign to WPEC; could you clarify?

Need sleep, more later. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third one is a great catch. Thanks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Affiliation switch: CBS had lured WPEC "lured" sounds almost nefarious to me. Is there a more neutral way to phrase this?
  • Rephrased.
• Link WPTV and perhaps explain more what they are
  • See below.
• Freedom Communications ownership: seeing interest in possibly buying additional stations dashed by rising prices whose interest is this? Perhaps you can disentangle the first sentence a bit to clarify Dreyfoos' intentions.
  • Rephrased.
• the company's remaining business I assume this is still related to other photo and laser printing stuff?
• "Color analyzers for photo finishing labs".
• When had Dreyfoos bought the Mergens stake?
  • I meant to write "in 1994" instead of "in WPEC". Oops!
• Sinclair ownership: link Sinclair Broadcast Group.
• News operation: MacArthur's general disinvestment in news gave WPTV a significant head start in news coverage can you provide more context? WPTV has not been properly introduced yet. Do you want to say that they existed before 1989 and were an important news outlet before 1973?
  • Yes. I've given WPTV a better introduction earlier in the article.
• You could actually link all of the TV stations again; as all of their names are so similar I need to ctrl-F a lot to figure out who they are.
• the 1981 shakeup why "the"? This is the first time 1981 is mentioned so this doesn't refer to anything prior.
  • It was in the History section; decided for a bit more summary here.
• With all the locations mentioned, a map of the local area and broadcast ranges would be great, but certainly not required at GA level. (My experience of Florida is limited to once driving from Miami to the Everglades and back).
  • A signal contour map could be done, but that's not the highest-level consideration for me right now. It's worth thinking about, though. It probably, in context, would be a flavor of the map in WTVJ with the WPEC contour added. It'd explain why CBS needed WPEC, for sure.
• The market's news ratings race tightened in the 2000s, when WPBF improved its product who was leading then? I don't quite understand the situation and who WPBF is, we haven't heard much of them.
• lead: WTCN-CD and WWHB-CD are only mentioned in lead and infobox; similarly the transmitter. These seem to be lacking citations. Might be better to mention them in the body as well?
  • The technical information in the infobox has an automatically generated citation, actually because of precisely this issue. I've added a mainline lead ref to WTCN and WWHB, as well.
• Other than that I am reasonably happy with the lead.
• We only get viewership information about the station in terms of news; is that because this is their only original programming?
  • Yes. Total-day ratings are rarely published these days; heck, news ratings are harder to find than ever. (One problem that is growing is that the local news media care less and the specialty media are shrinking. This is shaping my ability to cover stations especially in recent years.)

First pass done, will look at sources and comment on criteria next. —Kusma (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kusma: Addressed all issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1267835437 Random numbers 5 15 28 33 50 54 62 73 77.

• 5: ok
• 15: ok
• 28: ok
• 33: ok
• 50: ok
• 54: ok. "An example of 1980s activism". Not sure how many fired anchors have people picketing for them...
• 62a: ok
• 73: ok, but we don't have anything other than "she worked here".
• 77: ok

Spot checks clear. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A few prose points would benefit from clarifications, see above.
• A few comments on lead section above.
• Sources are mostly reliable newspapers, all nicely clipped or archived, very pleasant to use.
• Could not detect OR or CLOP issues.
• Happy with scope and neutrality/stability.
• Images: Logo is fine. Studio image is free. ALT text would be nice, but certainly optional.

Another well-researched article on a TV station, should not be hard to fix the couple of small issues. —Kusma (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Kusma: Looks like you were finishing up right as I was working on addressing all your issues. There is alt text for both images. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]