Talk:Comparative hearing

A fact from Comparative hearing appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the FCC's criteria for comparative hearings did not pass the Bechtel test?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Comparative hearing.

Wikipedia

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Radio Stations Low‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the FCC's comparative hearing criteria didn't pass the Bechtel test? Source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Archive-RandR/1990s/1999/RR-1999-08-27.pdf PDF p6/12 "Harry Cole, one of the lawyers representing Susan Bechtel, whose 1986 application for a new FM in Selbyville, MD led to the decision overturning the comparative hearings process..."
- ALT1: ... that the first TV license lottery in the United States used a drum previously utilized by the Selective Service System's draft lotteries? Source: https://search.proquest.com/docview/147522526 and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/118389846/tv-license-lottery-fcc-rolls-out-the-ba/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hussein Kamel Bahaeddin
- Comment: ALT0 is a quirky. ALT1 is a semi-tangent but easily among the best hook facts from this page

Converted from a redirect by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Comparative hearing; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I'm not really sure either hook meets the "intriguingness to a broad audience" criterion as currently written. Non-American readers may not know what the Bechtel test is, while ALT1's hook is a bit hard to understand as currently written. Perhaps some revision to ALT1 is in order here? I think that angle has more promise than the first hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair. This is a dry one from me but dozens of my articles were calling for it including several GA reviews. @Narutolovehinata5: Have an ALT1: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1a: ... that the first TV license lottery in the United States used equipment borrowed from the Vietnam War-era draft? Source: https://search.proquest.com/docview/147522526 and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/118389846/tv-license-lottery-fcc-rolls-out-the-ba/

Sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment I don't have the time or motivation to do a full review of this nomination anymore so I'd like to ask for a reviewer to make a full review; however per the above discussion I've struck ALT0 and ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing spot to review tomorrow. Just noting first that the first sentence doesn't use the words "TV" or "lottery" (and is generally unwieldy to read). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's review. @Sammi Brie: New enough, long enough, neutral and well-cited but there are some issues with readability to address (). Earwig shows nothing.

The first sentence of each lede paragraph is very confusing, with so many clauses within clauses. But more generally, I don't come away understanding what a comparative hearing was - is this a public process, like a trial? is there a lottery component, or is that a different process? was this the main method of resolving station ownership bids, or is this a secondary thing?
"introduced an aspect of public interest concerns" - can this be better phrased? and the whole Introduction section seems to be lacking - this might be resolved by making an Overview section, perhaps
The word "hearing" appears only once after the first mention - this may be contributing to my confusion

FWIW, I still like ALT0 a lot, solid pun even if not everybody gets it, unstruck. ALT1a reads fine, but as above is this article about lotteries or hearings? And a minor point, Vietnam isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hameltion: Fixed the Vietnam issue (the sources do justify this). I also did a bit of a reword. This was the primary method, but the lotteries were a secondary thing. There were oral hearings among lawyers, mostly in Washington. Does that help? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approve ALT0. ALT1a does not focus on the main subject of the article. Still think the first sentence could be made clearer for total noobs, but the small expansion to the Introduction section does help. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 12:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]