Template:Did you know nominations/KLPR-TV
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
KLPR-TV[edit]
... that Oklahoma City's KLPR-TV was the first TV station to program a country and western format?Source: "But never before has one station devoted its entire schedule to a country and western format." (p. 32)- ALT1:... that during the construction of Oklahoma City's short-lived KLPR-TV, a worker was trapped 200 feet (60 meters) in the air on its tower? Source: "A young construction worker was trapped 200 feet in the air on a wind-raked television tower for more than an hour Monday, before other crew members rigged a successful escape system for him."
- Reviewed: Doki Doki Literature Club!
Created by Raymie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC).
Article meets the DYK article requirements, no copyright violations or close paraphrasing was found, and a QPQ has been done. Of the two hooks, I think the first one might be the best. However, the article doesn't actually seem to mention that it was the first of its kind, only that it shared the format with the related radio station. In addition, the part about the station's predecessor in the lede doesn't seem to be referenced. I could also suggest that you propose another hook: that it was operational for just over a year. I think that it's quite rare for TV stations to have such short lives and that might also appeal to a broad audience; following this suggestion is your call of course. This will be good to go once the things I mentioned here are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: The article does say it was the first, in the middle of its first paragraph (see above quotation). I also added a reference to that lede citation (I also expanded KMPT (TV) with references I found at the same time). Raymie (t • c) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- The source says it, yes, but the article does not make this hook fact explicit, only mentioning that it was "unique". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I've added another citation—a Billboard article titled "KLPR-TV Pioneers in Country Video"—and the words "and pioneering" to the article text. Let me know if this helps. Raymie (t • c) 08:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Raymie: It does not; as I mentioned before, the article only states that its format was "unique" but it does not mention at all that it was the "first". This issue must be resolved if ALT0 will be approved; if this cannot be done, then ALT0 will be struck. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I've added another citation—a Billboard article titled "KLPR-TV Pioneers in Country Video"—and the words "and pioneering" to the article text. Let me know if this helps. Raymie (t • c) 08:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: How about replacing it with this ALT2: Raymie (t • c) 16:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Oklahoma City's KLPR-TV programmed a country and western format, unique in 1966?
- To be honest, ALT2 isn't great either. We probably need to go in a new direction with the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Oklahoma City's KLPR-TV programmed a country and western format, unique in 1966?
- If I may say so, Narutolovehinata5, "ALT2 isn't great either" is a most unhelpful comment. Either it complies with the rules, or it doesn't. Some specific finding of fault would help the nominator to see what you are objecting to now. Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- It basically feels like a boring hook, it's not eye-catching. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you may have in mind, Narutolovehinata5, is that the rule on hooks says this: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content." But that is a polite request, and not a strict requirement. What is "boring" is a subjective judgement. It might help you to look through that rule to see whether ALT2 complies with it or not. I have not checked the citation for it, but it seems to me to be within the rule, do you not think? Moonraker (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- It does comply with the technical rules and theoretically could pass, the problem is that I don't think it really fits the "catchy, and likely to draw the readers", it just doesn't seem spectacular enough to catch attention. Basically, if it were to be approved and promoted, there is a high possibility that it could end up on WP:ERRORS, and that's something that we try to prevent. Yes the rules are subjective, but still. In any case, ALT1 is looking more like a better option given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not follow the reasoning, you are applying a subjective judgement to something which is not a hard and fast DYK rule. If the hook did "end up on WP:ERRORS", the issue would simply be whether it were factually correct and whether it complied with the rules, which you seem to agree it does. You do not say why you have changed your view on ALT1, but perhaps things are looking up on this page. Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily the case, many hooks have also been pulled due to discussions on WP:ERRORS about lacking interest. The reason why I was starting to prefer ALT1 is because, at least it seems to be eyecatching and would likely get the attention of readers, unlike saying that some genre was unique in the past even though it's no longer the case. I'm aware that this is a subjective opinion, but it can be argued that the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion is to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not follow the reasoning, you are applying a subjective judgement to something which is not a hard and fast DYK rule. If the hook did "end up on WP:ERRORS", the issue would simply be whether it were factually correct and whether it complied with the rules, which you seem to agree it does. You do not say why you have changed your view on ALT1, but perhaps things are looking up on this page. Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- It does comply with the technical rules and theoretically could pass, the problem is that I don't think it really fits the "catchy, and likely to draw the readers", it just doesn't seem spectacular enough to catch attention. Basically, if it were to be approved and promoted, there is a high possibility that it could end up on WP:ERRORS, and that's something that we try to prevent. Yes the rules are subjective, but still. In any case, ALT1 is looking more like a better option given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you may have in mind, Narutolovehinata5, is that the rule on hooks says this: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content." But that is a polite request, and not a strict requirement. What is "boring" is a subjective judgement. It might help you to look through that rule to see whether ALT2 complies with it or not. I have not checked the citation for it, but it seems to me to be within the rule, do you not think? Moonraker (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
As this has been stuck for a while now, I'm going ahead and approving ALT1; I don't have access to the source so AGF for its verifiability. The hook is eyecatching and hooky, and while I would have preferred a hook about the station's format, that way does not appear to be feasible at this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
