Talk:WNWO-TV/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 02:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll start this review over the next few days. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

As this is the first TV GA review I'm undertaking, I'll go about it in a more dribs and drabs style than usual; hope this is okay, it can be reviewed as I go or all at once at the end. Thanks for bringing this to GA, as you both will have heard many times. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Finishing up. Clearly exceptional article, sorry for the time the review took as I've been trying to refer back to previous GA reviews of your work to get insight into possible fixes. Some questions/quibbles below, size of lede and some questions about ref #63 are all that are outstanding. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Rollinginhisgrave: All remaining outstanding items addressed, including all copy items (even if not mentioned here). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou Sammi, sorry this was a bit protracted and nitpicky at times. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose/content

Lede

• The lede is a too long, it should be around 2-3 paragraphs for the article's word count. I'll leave looking at this until the end since it'll be trimmed (unless there's a good reason I'm missing) clock
  • I've reorganized the lede into three paragraphs and trimmed them down. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WDHO-TV

• and consequent shifts in multiple alignments: What are alignments?
  • That should read allotments. Fixing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• which reimbursed the two firms a total of $17,200 in expenses incurred in their applicants -> which reimbursed the two firms $17,200 for expenses incurred in their applications ? I might be misunderstanding
  • Nope
• on the air idiom. I'm not sure if there's a better alternative, although I'm sure "broadcast" would feature somewhere within.
  • This phrasing is so common that it remains encyclopedic, in my estimation.

I agree. I do have more of a concern with WNWO's newscasts finally found something of a stride

• at the same time deferring -> and to defer
• In 1971, Overmyer pledged the stock of WDHO's license subsidiary What is the licence subsidiary?
  • Reworded
• and sought control present tense?
  • You're misreading the sentence; it's right. Here it is without the big appositive: FNBB then sued Overmyer on May 7, 1974, ... and sought control of 249 shares.

I did see that reading. The issue I had was the "and" implies distinction they didn't sue them and seek control, they sued them to seek control. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• The first bankruptcy proceeding for WDHO was dismissed in 1980; the same day the SDNY denied an appeal by Overmyer, on February 6, 1981, WDHO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again, this time in Cleveland, Ohio. Too wordy
• which regarded the takeover as proper and part of their debt collection This feels like repetition and obvious given we already know they sued for control of shares as collateral for defunct loans.
• FNBB sold WDHO to Toledo Television Investors, Ltd. (TTI) for $19.6 million in June 1985;[55] TTI was owned by I. Martin Pompadur and Ralph Becker, both of New York. Is this semicolon replacing a conjunction?
  • It joins two separate sentences, though a ", and" would not fit. Do you feel like a split is merited, Rollinginhisgrave? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that would reduce ambiguity. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Done — also handled the "stride" item. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref #3 Y
• Ref #22 Y
• Ref #25: Can you attach a quote supporting the $5-6 million figure?

It's not in there at all. Removing that figure and revising the citation to cover another appropriate page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref #51 Y
• Ref #63 clock

This contradicts #22 as it says the double-wide was not repossessed.

It's not clear in the source if the cheering was literal or figurative.

Really odd contradiction on the first one. I can't really change the second given what was said by the source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref #76 Y
• Ref #80 Y
• Ref #112 Y
• Ref #118 Y

Other

• Stable Y
• NPOV Y
• Images Y: update the purpose of use for 2011-2014 file
  • It's fair use and should honestly not have been kept. I thought it'd have been below TOO, but its shiny depiction hurts that. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• OR Y
• COPYVIO Earwig 23.7%, mainly long names of committees Y
• CRIT 3: Broad, not too detailed.

Suggestions

• The bank was immediately desirous to sell WDHO-TV. -> The bank immediately wanted to sell WDHO-TV.
  • Items to here addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.