![]() | WPST-TV has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from WPST-TV appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | WPST-TV was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 8, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk)
03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Nathan Obral ( talk) and Sammi Brie ( talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie ( talk) at 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Interesting article. This is ready.
SL93 (
talk)
00:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the station ceasing operations...Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Trammell, a former NBC executive, announced the network would join their station when it launched. Biscayne announced they were going to be NBC. WITV had ABC. WTVJ had CBS. There was nowhere for WGBS-TV to go.
On this version:
The FCC, in a reply dated Jan. 11 and revealed Wednesday, said that in an adjudicatory proceeding such as the Miami ch. 10 case, the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act require that decisions be based only on matters of record. It added: "Your letter, of course, is not of record in the proceeding. Accordingly the Commission feels it would commit legal error in considering it."
I am enjoying reading this rather labyrinthine story of the creation of a TV station. I'm about halfway through but started hitting problems on the spotchecks, particularly associated with the accuracy of direct quotations in 21, 42 and 96. I therefore did some more spotchecks and have the same problems with 110, 119, 127 and 128. Seems like we should discuss, because I am leaning towards failing this article right now since it needs some work on sourcing. Pinging nominators Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie - Mujinga ( talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
OK I'm going to stop the review here and fail the nomination. Thanks for the work you both have put into the article and for the fast response from Sammie Brie, but I'm still experiencing problems with quotations (eg sources 97, 185, 103). Also, right now I don't think any images are appropriately licensed. I do think the logo can be used, but it needs a different license. This article needs some polishing and then I'm sure it can be a good article in future. At the moment it fails on criteria 2 and 6. Mujinga ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look-see. It may take a bit to get familiar with all of the 100+ sources, so this might take a bit to get through fully. I'll note issues as I encounter them by stating them in the table below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (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. | Looked fine on first read. Will give another read for grammar/spelling after fixes are made.—
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead contains the claim that [i]t is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but this claim does not appear to be present in the body of the article. I'm also struggling on sourcing for part of this claim, but I'll comment on that in the 2C criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
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. | This has a references section that is appropriately styled. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
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). | Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I'm looking at the sourcing in the lead for It is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm just not seeing that in the cited source, which is pages 22-23 of this publication from 1961. What's not in question is that it was the first TV station to have its license revoked by the FCC, but I can't find where the source says that this is the thing that the station is best known for (the "perhaps" also feels weird here, as if to indicate that we're not sure about it). Is there a source that says this is what it's best known for, or is this original research? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyright violations nor plagiarism detected by Earwig, and I didn't see anything that jumped out when going through the sources and doing spot checks. Images also look to be suitably tagged as PD.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article appears to address most of the main aspects of this topic.
I also have doubts that current article's description of the scandal that led to the fall is sufficiently broad; the portion describing the scandal that caused the revocation seems to be missing coverage on the legal reasons that the sources say actually killed the license, which relates to the specific legal rules surrounding ex parte representations. The term doesn't currently get mention in the article (or linked to), but it seems like an explanation of the legal reasoning for the revocation of the license is needed for the coverage to be sufficiently broad. The article currently reads as if alleged bribery was the reason for the license being revoked, but my reading of the underlying sources is that they describe the ruling as having been a legal issue relating to ex parte representations at the end of the day. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Looks good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The section titled "Richard Mack" scandal seems to shift focus away from the station and towards Mack as an individual. Some of the language in the section (e.x. George T. Baker refuted every claim made by Pearson) also seems to be treating the station's statements as being more authoritative than the cited sources ( the cited source) merely reports them as statements rather than as proof that the station was innocent). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
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. | All seem to have valid tags. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | media captions look good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Placing on hold for now pending fixes to lead and improvements w.r.t. 3a and 4. I'll do another read through after fixes/responses are made and will update this table. Feel free engage in threaded discussion within the table so as to keep the responses orgainzed. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() | WPST-TV has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from WPST-TV appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | WPST-TV was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 8, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk)
03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Nathan Obral ( talk) and Sammi Brie ( talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie ( talk) at 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC).
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Interesting article. This is ready.
SL93 (
talk)
00:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the station ceasing operations...Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mujinga ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Trammell, a former NBC executive, announced the network would join their station when it launched. Biscayne announced they were going to be NBC. WITV had ABC. WTVJ had CBS. There was nowhere for WGBS-TV to go.
On this version:
The FCC, in a reply dated Jan. 11 and revealed Wednesday, said that in an adjudicatory proceeding such as the Miami ch. 10 case, the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act require that decisions be based only on matters of record. It added: "Your letter, of course, is not of record in the proceeding. Accordingly the Commission feels it would commit legal error in considering it."
I am enjoying reading this rather labyrinthine story of the creation of a TV station. I'm about halfway through but started hitting problems on the spotchecks, particularly associated with the accuracy of direct quotations in 21, 42 and 96. I therefore did some more spotchecks and have the same problems with 110, 119, 127 and 128. Seems like we should discuss, because I am leaning towards failing this article right now since it needs some work on sourcing. Pinging nominators Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie - Mujinga ( talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
OK I'm going to stop the review here and fail the nomination. Thanks for the work you both have put into the article and for the fast response from Sammie Brie, but I'm still experiencing problems with quotations (eg sources 97, 185, 103). Also, right now I don't think any images are appropriately licensed. I do think the logo can be used, but it needs a different license. This article needs some polishing and then I'm sure it can be a good article in future. At the moment it fails on criteria 2 and 6. Mujinga ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk ( talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look-see. It may take a bit to get familiar with all of the 100+ sources, so this might take a bit to get through fully. I'll note issues as I encounter them by stating them in the table below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (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. | Looked fine on first read. Will give another read for grammar/spelling after fixes are made.—
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead contains the claim that [i]t is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but this claim does not appear to be present in the body of the article. I'm also struggling on sourcing for part of this claim, but I'll comment on that in the 2C criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
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. | This has a references section that is appropriately styled. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
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). | Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I'm looking at the sourcing in the lead for It is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm just not seeing that in the cited source, which is pages 22-23 of this publication from 1961. What's not in question is that it was the first TV station to have its license revoked by the FCC, but I can't find where the source says that this is the thing that the station is best known for (the "perhaps" also feels weird here, as if to indicate that we're not sure about it). Is there a source that says this is what it's best known for, or is this original research? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyright violations nor plagiarism detected by Earwig, and I didn't see anything that jumped out when going through the sources and doing spot checks. Images also look to be suitably tagged as PD.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article appears to address most of the main aspects of this topic.
I also have doubts that current article's description of the scandal that led to the fall is sufficiently broad; the portion describing the scandal that caused the revocation seems to be missing coverage on the legal reasons that the sources say actually killed the license, which relates to the specific legal rules surrounding ex parte representations. The term doesn't currently get mention in the article (or linked to), but it seems like an explanation of the legal reasoning for the revocation of the license is needed for the coverage to be sufficiently broad. The article currently reads as if alleged bribery was the reason for the license being revoked, but my reading of the underlying sources is that they describe the ruling as having been a legal issue relating to ex parte representations at the end of the day. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Looks good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The section titled "Richard Mack" scandal seems to shift focus away from the station and towards Mack as an individual. Some of the language in the section (e.x. George T. Baker refuted every claim made by Pearson) also seems to be treating the station's statements as being more authoritative than the cited sources ( the cited source) merely reports them as statements rather than as proof that the station was innocent). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
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. | All seem to have valid tags. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | media captions look good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Placing on hold for now pending fixes to lead and improvements w.r.t. 3a and 4. I'll do another read through after fixes/responses are made and will update this table. Feel free engage in threaded discussion within the table so as to keep the responses orgainzed. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
|