Talk:WPST-TV/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look-see. It may take a bit to get familiar with all of the 100+ sources, so this might take a bit to get through fully. I'll note issues as I encounter them by stating them in the table below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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.	Looked fine on first read. Will give another read for grammar/spelling after fixes are made.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) On second read, there are a few issues grammar/clarity issues that I think need to be addressed: it is owned by Public Service Television, Inc This feels like a "was" situation. prevailed after a protracted bidding process against three other applicants for the station license There appear to have been more than four applicants involved, based on the body. prior to their vote What is the vote about? It hasn't been introduced yet. After FCC commissioner and Miami native Richard A. Mack—directly influenced by close friend and practicing attorney Thurman A. Whiteside to vote for NAL—resigned in the scandal's wake Was the resignation influenced by Whiteside, or was mack influenced by Whiteside to do other things? four very high frequency (VHF) signals: 2, 4, 7 and 10 I think this is meant to be channels 2, 4, 8, and 10. two ultra high frequency (UHF) signals: 27 and 33 same as above. WGBS was the first applicant to withdraw on April 9, 1953, after Storer agreed to purchase WBRC-TV in Birmingham, Alabama, its fifth TV station and placing it at the limit under FCC regulations This sentence currently lacks parallelism. which would own the new company's stock The simple past here would be better and more clear. Haber and WFEC voluntarily withdrew their bid Was the bid formally made by the company, the person, or both? It currently reads as if the legal bidders were both the person and the company. Is this right? but it would not be until June that the applicants would be subject to a formal review Again, simple past at the beginning of this is better grammar-wise. resigned his position after a referendum over funding for an educational TV station failed the previous November The use of "over" here is colloquial. Something like "referendum involving" or "referendum on" would be standard. favoring the group's local ties, community involvement and broadcasting experience Add an Oxford comma (there are other lists in the article that use one and the article needs to be consistent). Groundbreaking began in June 1957 Groundbreaking is a very specific, finite event; the use of "began" is non-standard. they watched filmed messages from vice president Richard Nixon, Florida governor LeRoy Collins, FCC chairman John C. Doerfer, ABC head Leonard Goldenson and ABC vice president of television Oliver Treyz Again, an Oxford comma should be added to make this consistent with other parts of the article. With an announced start date of September 8 for the rehearing, FCC general counsel Warren Baker's list of witnesses to be summoned included Mack, Whiteside, George T. Baker, A. Frank Katzentine and former Miami mayor Perrine Palmer, Jr., plus the same two executives from Florida Power & Light implicated in the Biscayne Broadcasting license case: chairman McGregor Smith and vice-president Ben Fuqua, who also doubled as a lobbyist Two things: the first clause in the sentence seems to be an unrelated fragment to the rest of the sentence, and Oxford comma also needs to be consistent with the rest of the article. Baker declined to comment, but WPST-TV attorney Norman Jorgensen promised to contest Stern's ruling before the FCC and would appeal if needed, telling the Herald, "there will be litigation. You can bet on that." There's a parallelism issue here w.r.t. "promised to contest" and "would appeal". Appeals with the U. S. Supreme Court I think appeals to is better here language-wise. deteriorated to where he was admitted to the psychiatric institute I feel a "the point" is missing here, but I'm unsure about if this is or isn't standard American English; Mack's wife sued him for divorce Generally "divorced him" or "filed for divorce" is more standard. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk: I resolved everything on this list. Haber's bid was apparently in his own name. I agree with the "three applicants" as others had withdrawn by the time the FCC had a vote: just PST, Katzentine, Wilson, and North Dade Video. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Looks good to me. Changed from "on hold" to "pass". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead contains the claim that [i]t is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but this claim does not appear to be present in the body of the article. I'm also struggling on sourcing for part of this claim, but I'll comment on that in the 2C criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) On read-through, looks good to me now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
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.	This has a references section that is appropriately styled. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
	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).	Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm looking at the sourcing in the lead for It is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm just not seeing that in the cited source, which is pages 22-23 of this publication from 1961. What's not in question is that it was the first TV station to have its license revoked by the FCC, but I can't find where the source says that this is the thing that the station is best known for (the "perhaps" also feels weird here, as if to indicate that we're not sure about it). Is there a source that says this is what it's best known for, or is this original research? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) On a second read-through and spot-check, WPST-TV was launched under severe space constraints doesn't seem to be directly supported by the source. A source needs to be cited that explicitly says that there were severe space constraints. Also, as evidenced by the date the ABC affiliation would go into effect, WPST-TV aimed for a August 1, 1957, sign-on The cited source doesn't give this as the cause; is this OR? With respect to Opposition filed by WLBW-TV to the stay request claimed Baker valued the studio building at $6 million, five times the market value, the source uses the term "book value". Book value is different than market value; it's OR to say that the two were the same at the time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Changes to resolve each of these. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Looks good to me. Changed from "on hold" to "pass". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations nor plagiarism detected by Earwig, and I didn't see anything that jumped out when going through the sources and doing spot checks. Images also look to be suitably tagged as PD.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article appears to address most of the main aspects of this topic. I also have doubts that current article's description of the scandal that led to the fall is sufficiently broad; the portion describing the scandal that caused the revocation seems to be missing coverage on the legal reasons that the sources say actually killed the license, which relates to the specific legal rules surrounding ex parte representations. The term doesn't currently get mention in the article (or linked to), but it seems like an explanation of the legal reasoning for the revocation of the license is needed for the coverage to be sufficiently broad. The article currently reads as if alleged bribery was the reason for the license being revoked, but my reading of the underlying sources is that they describe the ruling as having been a legal issue relating to ex parte representations at the end of the day. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Resolved by updates. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Looks good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The section titled "Richard Mack" scandal seems to shift focus away from the station and towards Mack as an individual. Some of the language in the section (e.x. George T. Baker refuted every claim made by Pearson) also seems to be treating the station's statements as being more authoritative than the cited sources (the cited source) merely reports them as statements rather than as proof that the station was innocent). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Resolved to my satisfaction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All seem to have valid tags. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	media captions look good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for now pending fixes to lead and improvements w.r.t. 3a and 4. I'll do another read through after fixes/responses are made and will update this table. Feel free engage in threaded discussion within the table so as to keep the responses orgainzed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Still on-hold after second read-through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) All extant issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. Congratulations on the GA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Red-tailed hawk: The 1b–2c issue has been fixed by removing the "best known for" part. The 3a issue has been fixed with several ex parte mentions in the lead and body. Still figuring out the issues on 4, though I did tweak the area you mentioned from "refuted" to "challenged". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Red-tailed hawk: Regarding 4: Richard A. Mack's inclusion in the article is problematic as 1) the majority of the scandal wound up focusing on him over anyone else on the FCC and 2) he actually faced trial twice over the license awarding. He probably should merit an article of his own if but to alleviate the undue weight (I understand Sammi Brie had offered a similar solution).Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. I will await further edits consistent with these observations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie: Any updates on this front? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk @Nathan Obral Just made my first attempt at trying to trim the Mack scandal section. It's tough. The whole thing coming to light led to Mack's high-profile resignation (the fact that an exclusive came from The Minneapolis Tribune, far from Miami, might indicate the level of scandal), revealed a pattern of improper activity at the FCC, and of course the license denial. I've tried to keep anything relevant to a) the channel 10 case, b) NAL, and c) large implications that would be omissions if not included (e.g. pressure for Mack's resignation). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Red-tailed hawk, is there any update as to this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I had taken your above comment as asking Nathan if he had any comment. I'll take a look at the updates. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)