Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutual Broadcasting System

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

Mutual Broadcasting System[edit]

Self-nomination. Stable article on one of the "Big Four" national networks of American radio's golden age. Corrects many errors prevalent online. Thanks to Eric O. Costello for helpful observations and PhantomS for source coding.—DCGeist 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a well-written article which gives an excellent history of the network, from the Quality Network days up to dissolution in 1999. Wikipedia has so many Featured Articles on current pop culture topics; it is nice to see such detailed work on an oft-neglected topic from "the ole days". I believe the prose is well-written; it is hard to imagine this article more comprehensive; and the crosschecking between On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio and The Encyclopedia of American Radio leads me to believe this article is about as factually accurate as anyone will get. Appropriate images are salted through the article, and the lead appears to summarize the rest of the contents of the article very well. No objection here. Well done. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Firsfron. An enjoyable, engaging read. The level of research is very impressive. + Ceoil 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs a thorough copy-edit, preferably by a non-US editor. In the third sentence of the lead: "golden age of radio drama" doesn't represent a world-wide viewpoint. I suggest that you put "US" somewhere in there. Reworded.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Towards the end of the lead: "it introduced the country to Larry King" – surely this should read "it introduced Larry King to the country"? No. Current wording is proper and most natural idiomatic expression.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The sentence starting "What WLW brought was sheer power" doesn't read entirely correctly, probably due to punctuation. Punctuation corrected.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Throughout the article, it used "through <date>" – you should be aware that this is an American idiom (In the UK, "to <date>" or "until <date>" is used). For an international audience "through to <date>" is the preferred compromise – this occurs too frequently for me to mention every occurrance. Addressed below.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The phrase "five Midwestern stations: KSLG–St. Louis; KSO–Des Moines, Iowa; WMT–Cedar Rapids, Iowa; KOIL–Omaha, Neb.; and KFOR–Lincoln, Neb." – for one of the stations, you don't mention the state; for two of the stations, you mention the full name of the state; for two of the stations you give an abbreviation for the state. Please make these consistant. Adjusted. As short, vowel-filled word, Iowa is not commonly abbreviated, as Missouri and Nebraska are.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "The Texas Network soon added twenty-three more stations to the MBS affiliate roster" – this sentance doesn't flow well from the previous one. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "Within a few years, this new Ohio participant would become a vested member of MBS." – I don't believe that you have defined what a "vested" member is. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "By the end of 1938, Mutual had 74 exclusive affiliates; though the two leading networks discouraged dual hookups" – at this point, the user is complete confused with the station abbreviation, and isn't certain what the "two leading networks" are; I would suggest putting these in parentheses after their mention. Reworded. Two leading networrk companies, CBS and NBC, now mentioned both in cited sentence and two sentences later.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Heading title "1940s: Major-minor" should have an en-dash. No. It's not major vs. minor. A compound of two single-word terms, one modifying the other, properly takes a hyphen.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What caused the change in co-operative structure in 1940? The decision of the participants. Not clear on the confusion here.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The paragraph starting "Already by 1940," – I'm confused by the references to "the Blue" and "the Red". Again, not clear on the confusion here. NBC's Blue and Red networks are brought up in preceding section. Quote is immediately preceded by a clarifying phrase "the FCC, calling for NBC to divest one of its two networks." What else can we do here?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in context.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "William Shirer came over from CBS to do commentary" – commentary on what? Clarified.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the 1950s section, you say "Mutual was at this point by far the largest radio network in the United States", and justify this by quoting the number of affiliates. However, in the previous section, it was mentioned that Mutual affiliates tended to broadcast at lower power than its rivals, and the network therefore required a greater number of affiliates to cover the same geographic area. If the argument is equally true in the 1950s, then a much larger number of affiliates does not correspond to a much larger network; if the argument is not equally true in the 1950s, then the article should mention the fact. Quite right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "with ABC falling in between" – in between what? Eliminated. No hard data available for that year.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1960s: "had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "One of the few long-form programs" – what on earth is a "long-form" program? Right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Generally, there are too many "as well" statements throughout the article. Consider swapping some of these with equivalent terms, such as "also". OK. Down to five "as well"s (1 per section).—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Bluap 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thanks for comments. Specific ce suggestions will be addressed. Article is on a U.S. topic, so U.S. idiomatic approach is proper per Wikipedia style; meaning of "through <date>" not obscure to any English speaker.—DCGeist 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Specific ce suggestions addressed per commentary or, in a couple cases, queried for clarification.—DCGeist 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification
the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in context Comment Except that the article does not say that that Mutual was first – it simply gives the time lag between the bombing and the radio broadcast. Bluap 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The line reads as it has: "Mutual flagship WOR interrupted a football game broadcast to make the initial mainland public announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Initial=first. The reason "first" isn't used in that sentence is to avoid an awkward echo with the following sentence: "The first bombs had dropped 63 minutes earlier."—DCGeist 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I interpreted "initial" to mean "the first announcement on Mutual", rather than "the first announcement on any radio network. Bluap 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Got it. Edited.—DCGeist 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?
I don't know what else it might mean. The concept of have lots of local stations that are owned separately, but share a large proportion of their programming with each other is not world-wide, and is mainly US-centric. Many countries do not have a differentiation between the "network" and the "station", or if they do, it is not the same as in the US. Since this concept is a pre-requisite for a large proportion of the artilce, perhaps a small paragraph near the station summarising what a US Radio Network does would be sufficient. Bluap 05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Understood. I'll think of some way to clarify the meaning for non-U.S. readers earlyish in the article.—DCGeist 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up OK. Lead states the following: "For the first eighteen years of its existence, MBS was owned and operated as a cooperative, setting the network apart from its competitors: Mutual's members shared their own original programming, transmission and promotion expenses, and advertising revenues.... [After] 1957, Mutual's ownership was largely disconnected from the stations it served, leading to a more conventional, top-down model of program production and distribution." There's also a lead link to radio network, which further details the concept.—DCGeist 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-up Consequent to responding to a comment of SandyGeorgia's, I edited the first couple sentences of the second graf of section 1 to further clarify the standard U.S. network style and Mutual's notable deviation.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some reason the formatting of "Sources" looks a bit odd on my computer...the left column is much skinnier than the right column. Have you tried <div class="references-2column"></div>? Gzkn 06:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Same with me. PhantomS took my old-school, single column biblio formatting and brought the sources into this mod format. It looked fine on my computer--equal-width columns--for a few days, but now I'm seeing the same thing you are and for no apparent reason. I don't really understand the coding issues here, so if you have an idea how to deal with it (as it seems), please go ahead and test. I don't know how to apply the coding sequence you suggest for maximum effect.—DCGeist 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I updated it to the "references-2column" class. Note that "references-2column" forces the columns to conform to the same height. Thus, depending on the width of your browser window, the last source in the left column may run over to the right column. Gzkn 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Looks like the Leblebici entry and possibly the Lucier entry were confusing the column templates I was using. --PhantomS 06:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if that's the case, and you'd rather use the previous column templates, feel free to revert. Gzkn 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The column templates I was using used tables. The extra long entries stretched the second column, which shrank the first column. Using the div is probably a better idea there, considering the entries would have to be played with otherwise. As for the height issues related to the addition of the references-2column div, they should be acceptable unless someone complains. --PhantomS 07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks all. I'm simply out of my depth with the coding here.—DCGeist 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I decided not to wait for any complaints about text running over and modified the templates I was using. It should appear correctly now. If it doesn't, please let me know. The big difference was the change out of col-break for col-2.--PhantomS 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up As of your latest edit, PhantomS, it appears as two-column perfection on my 12-inch Mac laptop!—DCGeist 07:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will read the article later, but See also is not used correctly - it's currently two Lists that should be in separate sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query In what way is it used incorrectly? The MoS guideline I'm familiar with is Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices. This suggests, relevantly:
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article.
Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent
That's what the See also section does here: (a) it lists internal links to other articles as a navigational aid, (b) it repeats no links already present in the article, (c) it groups the links into two subject areas--shows and individual people--for ease of navigation, and (d) it provides a brief explanatory or amplificatory bit of information with each link: (i) in the case of the shows (i.e., all the shows that ran on Mutual that I've been able to identify a Wikipedia article on and that are not discussed in the article), it gives their start and end dates, and (ii) in the case of the people, it identifies their primary profession.
How does that violate the guideline? And, given that the rosters are based--in See also fashion--on links to other articles in Wikipedia that are not referenced in the main text of the article, what would these two proposed Lists properly be called?—DCGeist 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting article. Although I'm not a fan of the paragraph sized captions under each photo but that may be a personal preference. Harvey100 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - 1a, 1c, 2 - most seriously, again, the use of websources which may not rise to the level of WP:RS.
    • Weasle words without cites ("It is often claimed", etc.);
  • Reply In the end, only a weasle word if not verifiable. Sentence mentioned now rigorously and extensively cited. You wrote "weasle words." I searched the entire article for the most common weasle word flags and didn't find any more examples of uncited, weasly phrasing. If you identified any others, please specify them so they can be cited, edited, or eliminated.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • snakes (Unlike the existing national networks of the time—NBC's Red and Blue networks (the latter of which would be sold and transform into ABC in 1943–44) and the Columbia Broadcasting System—the Mutual Broadcasting System was run as a true cooperative venture, with programming produced by and shared between the group's members.)
  • Reply Edited, and in such a way as to provide additional help to Bluap and others not familiar with the basic notion of a classic U.S.-style broadcasting network. You wrote "snakes." Opinions on what qualifies as a snake are in many cases subjective. I looked and didn't find any more. If you identified any others, please identify them so they can be edited.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • named refs should be employed to avoid repeat refs to the same source;
  • Reply No. "Repeat refs to the same source" is the preferred scholarly style, and is also much easier for general readers of Wikipedia to navigate. "Named refs" are acceptable and many Wikipedia editors find them efficient, but specific references are clearly preferable intellectually, from an academic perspective, and practically, from a readership perspective. At best, you are expressing a personal preference that does not relate to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. And, if you had looked through the 100-plus notes before writing, you would have seen that name refs would have eliminated a grand total of two of them. It would be unusual to raise this in a Comment; it clearly has no place as part of an Objection. Please refamiliarize yourself with the Featured article criteria.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • publishers/authors not identified on all websources, some of which upon further examination appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS;
  • Reply The first part of the comment is simply incorrect. Publishers and/or authors, as applicable, are identified for every single websource, either in the link itself or following it. In one lone case (the note for Zero Hour), online information resources that are not used as sources for article text are presented in abbreviated fashion, simply as an aid to the interested reader. The second part of the comment states that "upon further examination [some websources] appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS." In fact, every websource, whatever its producer, was (a) vetted for reliability, both generally and for the specific field encompassing the data cited and was used (b) only after extensive research established it as the best available source for the relevant information. A reading of the notes evidences this assertion, revealing detailed consideration of sources' reliability and caveats to readers as appropriate (including important warnings about sources that would easily pass a simplistic, policy-based test). Please specify what websources underwent this "further examination" you speak of and the particular reason for doubting the reliability of any as a source for the specific data in question.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • article text (lists of shows and personnel) included as See also, rather than incorporated into text as separate sections. Adding extra long image captions results in a very long article. (See also isn't counted by scripts calculating prose size; a manual check reveals 42KB of prose, indicating that Summary style should be considered to shorten the article per WP:LENGTH.)
  • Reply The contents of See also are not article text, as one would learn from reading either (a) my detailed response to your first comment on this issue or (b) the entire article, as is asked of all those who weigh in on FACs. The contents of See also are specifically not covered in the article. They are included as a navigational aid to Wikipedia readers, along with helpful amplificatory and explanatory information. Inclusion on each list is clearly based on Wikipedia's own resources, as is appropriate to a See also section. For such lists to have intellectual standing as article text sections, they would need to be comprehensive--i.e., listing every show that ever played on Mutual (adding in all the shows that are covered in the article text and the innumerable others not yet represented on Wikipedia) and every person significantly involved with the network (requiring an even vaster expansion). There is no authoritative source for the former. The latter is obviously (or, it appears, not so obviously) a fool's quest. Each image caption is intended to serve a pedagogical purpose, complementary and (in the longer cases) supplementary to the main text. If there are any captions you have a specific problem with, please identify them so they can be appropriately edited.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Bluap's copyedit concerns: the issues Bluap raised are obscured by the strange formatting of replies, making it hard to sort out what has been addressed, but not all of those issues appear to have been addressed.
  • Reply I'm sorry you found the formatting of my replies to Bluap "strange" (Did you notice? Bluap never said they were strange...and had no problem finding my queries and responding to them.) I sought the most specific and respectful form of reply given the format in which Bluap brought forward the issues. Every single one of Bluap's issues has been addressed--in over 75% of the cases by a directly responsive edit; in two cases by a defense of U.S. idiom, in two cases by a defense on general intellectual grounds. Bluap has evidently acceded to the latter, and--as is evident from the ongoing colloquy between Bluap and me--would certainly be responded to respectfully if there were any lingering concern. Disregarding the productive exchange Bluap and I have had, you wrote "not all of those issues appear to have been addressed." Please specify what those issues are, so they can be.—DCGeist 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think DC has answered those objections. If anyone is paying attention. Harvey100 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't - DCGeist's verbosity in responding about his own particular views of Wiki guidelines doesn't equate to concerns addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Sandy is, of course, free to label my responses "verbose," "long-winded," "logorrheic," or simply "precise and detailed," but each basis for the objection has been addressed with responsive edits or has been shown to be ill-founded. No basis for Sandy's objection remains. As Sandy's inability to reply on a single point reveals.—DCGeist 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I feel that the vast majority of the points have been addressed, and that it shouldn't be actionable against the article being featured. Bluap 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Very good overall. Some minor points I that I think should be considered:
    • The sentence "Of the four national networks of American radio's classic era, for decades it had the largest number of affiliates but the least certain financial position" in the first paragraph is a little bit awkward. Rephrase or restructure.
Edited.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the section headers such as "Starting out," "Major-minor," and "Narrowed focus, niche markets" come off as too informal. Headings like "formative years" and "declining markets" or similiar variations might work better.
Edited.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list format of the 1940 MBS distribution of shares seems out-of-place amongst the body of prose. Consider transferring this into prose, or better yet, create a chart.
Chart created for info.—DCGeist 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While cited, the sentence "Welles was brilliant in most regards, but he couldn't pull off the sinister chuckle" in the Orson Welles image box comes off as POV. Clarify who is making this statement.
Recast. Quote provided and cited.—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though The Lone Ranger rode off to NBC Blue in May 1942 . . ." Cute pun, but we should probably ditch it.
Edited. (Aw...)—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Shadow finally gave up the ghost in December 1954 . . ." Same thing.
(...shucks.) Edited.—DCGeist 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "See also" can possibly be retitled "List of Mutual programs and personalities"
See replies to Sandy above. In sum: Shows and personalities are included under "See also" as navigational aids, based on current Wikipedia resources. There presently exists no authoritative source for a comprehensive or even near-comprehensive list of all Mutual series. If such a source is ever made available, the current show info in "See also" can be moved to a new list-article. A comprehensive list of all significant Mutual personalities is a practical impossibility. The rationale for inclusion does not come close to the necessary intellectual standard for a List; again, it is based in classsic "See also" fashion on existing Wikipedia articles not linked in the main text.—DCGeist 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A major consideration: You might possibly want to move some text around to create a separate section (or article even, with a summary-style section featuring a link to the main article) about the programming and the notable shows (The Shadow, Superman, game shows, etc.). This might increase readability and cut down on length, as right now the sections focus on the company as a whole for a number of paragraphs, then shift to detailed explanations of the shows.
New subsections focusing on programming established for all extensive sections (i.e., all sections except those covering launch and demise of network). Text and image placement adjusted accordingly.—DCGeist 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my points have been sufficiently addressed. The chart does look better. My only concern now is the programming sections. What I was suggesting was more along the lines of a section covering the entire history of MBS' programming, separated from the main corporation history. However, I'm willing to defer to the thoughts of other editors on the matter if they're fine with the current layout. WesleyDodds 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you know, come to think of it Wesley that would be pretty awesome, I still support the current version though. But I think we're asking an awful lot of DC however as he is the only one really working on it. Harvey100 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well-written, informative article about a significant portion of radio history. --PhantomS 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a listener to Mutual during the 1940s, it was a delight to read this terrific survey with so much info I had never previously encountered. I'm in favor of keeping it chronological (as per the rule of biographies: never insert a sentence that jumps ahead of the ongoing timeline). Lengthy captions also fine with me. Pepso 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fulfills all of the qualities expected of an FA to the Nth degree in a uniquely giest style. Don't get too overzealous through or you'll have to break it into sub articles and make multiple FAs. (Not like that's a bad thing) Andman8 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned with the amount of copyrighted photos in the article. Each one seems to have the explanation of basically it's really important that I have this and it's needed here. Also none of them are actually scaled down in resolution from their source images, they are merely stated to be so. The infobox pic is 299 x 374 pixels in both the source image and the Wikipedia image. Quadzilla99 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed fair use rationales provided for all images—specific relevance to article is explained for each according to highest Wikipedia standards. All images now used fall easily within well-established Wikipedia fair usage guidelines (corporate logo, ads, business promotional images). Sources referenced provide low-res images to begin with—no further scaling down required, though scaling down was performed in over 50% of the cases to achieve manageable bitsize. Not a single image in the article is of high enough resolution to be improperly exploited. Rationale for infobox logo updated; image of corporate logo unquestionably permissible per fair use.—DCGeist 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the sources for all the images are not in the images description pages in a linkable format. The one for Fulton Lewis doesn't seem to be working either when it is cut and pasted to a url. Quadzilla99 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Source links updated.—DCGeist 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll still a little bit concerned about the number of copyrighted images, so I'm not going to support it or oppose it. There's an awful lot of them. If an admin looked the images over and determined they were all acceptable then I'd support it. Quadzilla99 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm confident that all issues are cleared up, and that this is a well-researched and fantastic article. WesleyDodds 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mutual_Broadcasting_System&oldid=1146353440"