A fact from KOPR-TV appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Montana television station KOPR-TV brought forward its start date by several months, only to last just one year?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
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
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.
Overall: Article meets newness and size linked eligibility requirements. Article requires some minor work in sourcing. Specifically, the sentences in the lede should be a) written in the body of the article and then should be sourced as well. e.g. the fact that it was owned by the owning corporation that is mentioned, the fact that it was broadcast from the hotel that is mentioned. The contents in the infobox should also be cited or referenced in the body of the article. The tone of the article is neutral and is written well. I am not familiar with TV stations as a category of articles -- but, does it make sense to expand the article with a) category of programming, b) any famous shows, and c) anything else re: the content being broadcast / transmitted. Hook is partially substantiated by the source i.e. 1953 television digest, mentioning the advancement of the start date. Source, however, does not mention that the advancement was to match its competitor's start date. Please can you clarify that with additional sources? The same should be reflected in the article as well. QPQ is done. Earwig's Copvio detector shows no plagiarism issues. Ktin (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations to each line of the infobox except place. This isn't typically done with some fields, though on defunct stations I will always cite the technical information to the relevant annual (sometimes because that's the only place a citation of that kind gets used).
Programming: This station did not have many local shows, and those it did have have very little information associated with them. The Montana Standard was not the greatest at covering TV, I will say that. The program listings show a few offerings that were local: local news, "Montana Power Weather", and something called "Copper Bandstand". But what few entertainment shows they produced—from what were quite small facilities even for its era—were quite sparse, and there is no coverage of them at all. (They at least were more local than KFXD-TV, which I wrote about earlier this year and was hardly a station at all by the standards of its day!) The "famous shows" would be accounted for by network affiliation.
I probably overreached a bit on the hook. Try ALT1:
... that Montana television station KOPR-TV brought forward its start date by several months, only to last just one year?
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for the quick response. ALT1 looks better served by the sourcing mentioned. Can you also take a pass at having the text in the lede be stated and referenced in the body? Also, if the content carried by the station was not notable or was not available, I would atleast state the broad category of what content was transmitted. Also, is there anything to be written about the network affiliations? I see a sentence there saying that the content "came from CBS and ABC." Anything specific about network affiliations? Ktin (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Ktin. CBS seems to have been primary over ABC, which makes sense, but can't really cite. Been able to briefly mention the local programs and made a couple of text adjustments. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 09:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets newness and size linked eligibility requirements. Article requires some minor work in sourcing. Specifically, the sentences in the lede should be a) written in the body of the article and then should be sourced as well. e.g. the fact that it was owned by the owning corporation that is mentioned, the fact that it was broadcast from the hotel that is mentioned. The contents in the infobox should also be cited or referenced in the body of the article. The tone of the article is neutral and is written well. I am not familiar with TV stations as a category of articles -- but, does it make sense to expand the article with a) category of programming, b) any famous shows, and c) anything else re: the content being broadcast / transmitted. Hook is partially substantiated by the source i.e. 1953 television digest, mentioning the advancement of the start date. Source, however, does not mention that the advancement was to match its competitor's start date. Please can you clarify that with additional sources? The same should be reflected in the article as well. QPQ is done. Earwig's Copvio detector shows no plagiarism issues. Ktin (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)