Talk:WLVI/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I remember when attenna TV (as in TV stations) were still relevant. It still exists, but cable + netflix + youtube is now the new game in town. TV and broacasting ownership has always been complicated. Now, on to the show .... the show that is your GA review ;)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Shouldn't there be a comma between "WXHR (96.9 FM)" and "applied" in the first section (WTAO-TV)?
The sentence By 1993, with competition from WFXT and WSBK for news on the horizon and no marquee sports programming, the station was lacking an identity. could flow better without the words on the horizon.
The usage of the word "but" in the sentence in the section "Return to late news" Barnd was subsequently disciplined by station management after the incident,[67] but in 2002, the station parted ways with Barnd, seeking a return to a more serious newscast. implies that he wasn't going to be fired. I would replace the usage of the word "but" with "and".
From 1985 to 1990, WLVI again became the carrier of the Boston Celtics road games. I think the term "away games" isntead of "road games" is more clear.
The site was later owned by car dealer Herb Chambers The word "bought" would make more sense.
Done

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
There is an entire section dedicate to their newscast operations, and I don't see any mention of it in the lead. Shouldn't there be some info about it, even if it is mostly historical ("They were known for .....") You do have bits of the ownership and technical info there, which is good.
Done Summary leads are not something this type of article is known for and have been one of the critical parts of upgrading station projects to GA.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
There is a random out of place bullet point at the end of the article. Is that supposed to be there? Or is that supposed to be an external link?

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Citations archived with web.archive.org. Citations go to known, reliable sources, such as the Boston Globe. One question I do have is regarding the shutdown date of WLVI - the FCC site says WLVI-TV NTSC CHANNEL 56 WILL SIGN-OFF AT 11:59:59 PM ON FEBRUARY 17, 2009. but the article says June. I do remember that after some stations "sign off'ed" they had that DTV transition guide video on loop until they actually shut down for good. Is the date in the article referring to when they "signed off" (so no new content) or when they shut down the signal (so white static)
The US DTV transition was delayed quite late in the game. Some stations went off on the original February date, but most closed in June. WLVI waited to June.

C. It contains no original research:
Everything was cited. There is a statement, at the end of the article, that says for an undisclosed amount that he described as "a lot of money". but there is no citatoin following it. I think you might have already referenced the citation that says that earlier, but I would make sure that you reuse the citation for right after that sentence so that the reader knows where to find that.
Done I found the original article that contains this, so that citation has been added.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
None that I am aware of.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
About typical for the TV station articles on here, nothing

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Yes, stays on point. I like the quotes, they add context to the article and spice it up a little.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Yes.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Yes.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
It could use some more images, even one or two could be useful. If you can't find any, that's fine, I understand unconvering all this can be difficult. I am not sure if you can use non-free images, there are some nice ones from a newspaper or something.
Wasn't this a WB station before it became CW? Maybe you could add a logo of the station when it was with WB for historical completeness.
When I do these pages, I do make a search for appropriately licensed photos. I could not find one—not surprising given that WLVI as an independent entity was subsumed before smartphones were a thing. We also don't tend to keep many former logos around: many of them would not meet TOO. I have made a DM to maybe get a photo added of the old studio building, because—believe it or not—there's been a Boston's WB sign left to decay for the last 15+ years, and it's come off so much you can see an even older "56" underneath. Hopefully that comes through, but it shouldn't be a blocker.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Tagged when appropiate.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Rlink2: Made some prose fixes, added one new ref, responded to another issue, and I'm even making an overture to see about an image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: I secured rights to an image, which has been added. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: That's wonderful that you were able to source an image! Very intresting topic. The improvements here look good, and I am happy with the work you have put into this, as per usual. The changes you have made look good to me. Promoted. Rlink2 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]