Talk:WUXP-TV: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
m Transcluding GA review
26,290 edits
promote WUXP-TV to good article (GANReviewTool)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|15:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)|topic=Media and drama|page=1|oldid=1202655785}}
{{GA nominee|18:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Sammi Brie|<span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her • [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]])|page=1|subtopic=Television|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=MyNetworkTV affiliate in Nashville, Tennessee}}
{{WikiProject Television|category=|class=C|importance=Low|television-stations=yes|television-stations-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Television|category=|class=GA|importance=Low|television-stations=yes|television-stations-importance=Low}}
{{Talk:WUXP-TV/GA1}}
{{Talk:WUXP-TV/GA1}}

Revision as of 15:20, 3 February 2024

WikiProject iconTelevision: Stations GA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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:WUXP-TV/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Review

I am happy to review this one. I will make comments atop the chart with questions or checked sections. Excited to work with you to get this article passed.

Spelling etc.

Green tickY In History/The TVX Years should be "station's" for this sentence "The Taft stations purchase left TVX highly".
Green tickY MT Communications ownership section "it was in second-place to WZTV among" probably should not be hyphenated.
These two should be fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summary

Green tickY The facts presented in the lead are repeated and cited in the article with one exception.
Green tickY This appears in the lead but is not repeated and cited in the body it is also sister to Dabl affiliate WNAB (channel 58).
Reworded the lead to avoid this requiring excessive body detail about WNAB. As a "shelled" station (its programming was basically scooped up and ghosted for ownership-related reasons), it's hard to describe it in the lead without too many references. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Green tickY The article does not have images. There is a logo which appears to be correctly licensed

Citations

History
Green tickY The TVX years - citations are all correct here
Green tickY MT Communications ownership - citations are all correct here
Green tickY Sullivan and Sinclair management Does the first sentence line up with the cite? - I cannot find mention of "purchased WZTV".
Act III owned WZTV at the time, and the entire company was purchased. See also [1]. (ABRY bought Act III and then formed Sullivan to run the former Act III portfolio). Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local programming
Green tickY News and public affairs
Green tickY Sports
Technical information
Green tickY Subchannels
Green tickY ATSC 3.0
Green tickY Analog-to-digital conversion

Stable

Green tickY Only 22 edits since February 2023 so the article is stable. No warring.

Wording that may need attention

Green tickY Lead says "tight market" is that colloquial?
Green tickY TVX years says "stocked" and "in the running" might both be colloquial
Green tickY TVX years, "had been chosen, as had a tower site" maybe use "selected"?
Green tickY TVX years "The station affiliated that fall with the new Fox network" should is be "became" affiliated.
Green tickY MT Communications ownership, "However, that deal fell apart, and the deal went the other way" the sentence may not be clear and uses colloquial language
@Bruxton: Fixed all. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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. Yes
1b. it complies with the
list incorporation
.
Yes
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
.
Yes
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). Yes
2c. it contains no original research. Yes
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio
:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
.
7. Overall assessment. I enjoyed reviewing the article!
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.