Talk:WBPX-TV/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Looks to be a decently interesting topic, and pretty well-sourced. Should finish this review in a day or two. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

No issues here. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early history[edit]

The subscription television years[edit]

  • First paragraph: fine, though some is referenced to primary sources (which look to be common throughout the article - not ideal, but not a huge issue).
      • Welcome to the world of FCC history cards.
  • Second paragraph: also looks good, sourced accurately to historic newspapers (also lol, took a decade, this station really got off to a great start /s).
      • It's pretty clear that the reason they took so long was for the STV technology to mature, quite honestly.
  • Third paragraph:
    • The subscription service, named BEST at launch, became known as Starcase in May 1979.[7] this ref is kinda iffy - just an ad clipping.
    • The rest looks good - perhaps ref 9 could support ref 7?
      • It really doesn't...
  • Forth paragraph:
    • Maybe Satellite Television and Associated Resources is a potential good redlink, since it looks like they owned multiple stations at some point?
      • Done...I bet I could find enough for a new article on them.
    • Everything else is fine.
  • Fifth paragraph:
    • Channel 68 was not the only purveyor of subscription television programming in Massachusetts; alongside a microwave distribution system carrying HBO its primary over-the-air competition came from Preview, owned by American Television and Communications (ATC)—the cable division of Time, Inc.—and broadcast on WSMW-TV from Worcester.[13] this feels a bit synthym, since the source doesn't mention channel 68.
      • See "Starcase" right near the top. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest is fine.
  • Sixth paragraph: no issues.

"Where the Stars Shine"[edit]

  • The quote: relevant, appropriately sourced, valid fair-use (no issues).
  • First paragraph:
    • Since Financial News Network is abbreviated as FNN later, maybe introduce it as "Financial News Network (FNN)"? Confused me for a second.
    • Otherwise, looks good.
  • Second paragraph:
    • Emerson College, owner of noncommercial WERS, was invited to make a bid,[23] but the station would attract a Boston institution with no television experience and big broadcasting dreams. - what source covers everything after ref 23?
      • It's one of those weird "connective tissue to the next section" pieces...

@Sammi Brie: here, did the first section, feel free to address the things I raised here while I work on the rest of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Monitor ownership[edit]

  • First paragraph: no issues, assuming good faith on the Fiedler ref (same goes for other newspaper refs without clippings).
  • Second paragraph: no issues
  • Quote: relevant and appropriately sourced - no issues
  • Third paragraph: no issues (agf on the book refs)
  • Forth paragraph: no issues
  • Fifth paragraph: curious about such as the 42-part Japanese documentary The Silk Road - the relevant article doesn't say that it's 42-part (though the article is poor, so I wouldn't be too surprised by an inaccuracy, but I'd like some clarification). Everything else looks good.
  • That is from Bridge, p. 112. jawiki seems to indicate 42 total episodes were produced... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving now before reviewing the subsections. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor Channel[edit]

  • The quote: no issues
  • First paragraph: no issues
  • Second paragraph: https://story.com/Archive-BC/BC-1990/BC-1990-09-03.pdf (ref 47) is a deadlink. Otherwise fine.
  • Third paragraph: no issues
  • Forth paragraph: no issues
  • Second quote: no issues
  • Fifth paragraph:
    • Hart resigned on October 31, 1991,[52] citing differences over the religious mission of the church, the program's coverage of the Twitchell case in which two Christian Scientist parents were tried for refusing medical care for their child.[49] this seems like improper grammar - it's a comma-separated list with two items.
    • He was replaced by John Palmer, but the Hart resignation—a key element in Discovery chairman John Hendricks's decision to carry the program—prompted Discovery to pull out of its six-year contract to carry World Monitor. this is kinda clunky - I'd write He was replaced by John Palmer, but the resignation of Hart—who was a key element in Discovery chairman John Hendricks's decision to carry the program—prompted Discovery to pull out of its six-year contract to carry World Monitor.
    • With the channel's carriage still severely limited by the same structural factors of channel capacity and an uncertain regulatory environment, offered World Monitor for air to cable systems free for two years, as long as the system added the Monitor Channel at the end of that period. grammar - seems like there's a word missing before "offered"
  • Sixth paragraph: no issues

@Sammi Brie: looked at this section Elli (talk | contribs) 11:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: Oops, first one was a typo! Somehow, "worldradiohi" got lost from the URL... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of the Monitor Channel and sale of WQTV[edit]

  • The quote: no issues
  • First paragraph: Executives released a statement, titled "Staying the Course", in which they described the Globe's "all-out assault on the television activities of the Monitor"; executives is a bit ambiguous here, I'd mention that they're executives of the station
  • Second paragraph: no issues
  • Third paragraph: no issues
  • Forth paragraph: The last task confronting the church as it wound down its once-expansive media operation was to sell the Boston television station that had fueled its boom—which had finally ditched Monitor Channel fare and was airing syndicated shows instead. this feels redundant to the previous paragraph. I'd cut it and mention WQTV directly in the next sentence instead
  • Fifth paragraph: no issues

I'll try getting to the next section of the article soon. (wow, half a billion dollars on a TV channel, jeez) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston University ownership[edit]

  • The quote: no issues
  • First paragraph: I'd introduce the initialism - "Boston University (BU)" - in the first paragraph, to make it clearer what is being referred to throughout the rest of the section
  • Second paragraph: no issues
  • Third paragraph: no issues
  • Forth paragraph: no issues
  • Fifth paragraph: no issues
  • Sixth paragraph: no issues

Overall I do find some of this a bit hard to follow - mainly because I'm asking questions like "who is Kevin Dunn?" - but since we don't have articles on these people, I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to redlink as most searches bring up someone else and unless you're interested in writing about these tangential topics it's unlikely they ever get covered here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pax and Ion ownership[edit]

  • First paragraph: link Fox Sports Net New England?
  • Second paragraph: no issues
  • Third paragraph: The source doesn't mention WBPX at all, I think.

@Sammi Brie: I'm kinda confused here. I don't see how exactly WABU became WBPX - the first paragraph here implies that "WBPX channel 46" (linked to a different station) was already a thing? So I'm kinda not making the connection here. Can this be clarified? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already linked to Fox Sports Net New England earlier in the article, but given the name change between for that entity, I've linked them in. I added an offline source for #3. Pax had launched August 31, 1998, on a different station which used the same call letters. Also made the changes in the above section: JCS Sports is probably notable (and I might write about them) as having held the Red Sox TV rights for a year. Here's an excerpt from a different Herald article:

WFXT-TV's pact is the latest in a string of television deals after the Red Sox essentially fired JCS, a start-up company that could not come up with approximately half the annual $10 million TV rights fee, according to reports in The Boston Globe. JCS was a joint venture run by Kevin Dunn and former CBS president Gene Jankowski.

Digital television[edit]

  • This looks to be a standard section across similar articles - Through the use of PSIP, digital television receivers display the station's virtual channel as its former UHF analog channel 68, which was among the high-band UHF channels (52-69) that were removed from broadcasting use as a result of the transition. doesn't have a ref, the rest is fine.

Former translators[edit]

  • Maybe try to work this into previous sections (it's not clear when this started). If it can't be, that's fine.

See also[edit]

  • No issues (nor with any of the other sections).

Lead[edit]

  • Seems to be an accurate summary of the article, employing LEADCITE.

@Sammi Brie: just a few other minor things and I can pass this article - I don't see a reason to put it formally on hold since you've been pretty quick about addressing these. Nice article! Elli (talk | contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I can't really do much with the former translators because there would be very few RSs. The general history I've been able to piece together, mostly on forum and newsgroup (!) posts: WMPX-LP in Dennis was established by a Cape Cod outfit in the early 80s to rebroadcast WQTV. W40BO had been owned by Paxson back when its closest station was ch. 60 Merrimack NH and it needed a booster; it does seem to have had a pre-Paxson history but nothing talks about it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: makes sense. If there isn't really much more content that can be reliably-sourced, keeping the section as-is is fine. I think the article has some scope issues because it's a combination of two topics sort of - the station that broadcasts on channel 68 in Boston, and the one known as "WBPX". Though it's mainly the former, some of the content, especially later in the article, is more the later (I guess it's more of an issue of naming - since we name it after the latter).
Regardless, this is more of a large-scale thing and not particularly relevant to this review. So, let me get out the official table thing and promote this. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nice article, promoting. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WBPX-TV/GA1&oldid=1026964323"