Talk:WDJT-TV/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly since I don't think I've done a review before for you: all comments are fair game for discussion. I won't force changes you disagree with except those that would cause the article to fail GACR (ie if something is demonstrably unclear vs. just a style issue).

Lead

You've linked "independent station" twice in the lead. To avoid a sea of blue, you may want to retain the second link and lose the first.
"owned by two minorities" The phrasing here feels odd, like we're reducing the owners to just being minorities (compare "owned by two gays" or "owned by two disableds" for why it feels weird). It might help if we said what minority, and added a noun ("businesspeople" or whatever) so that "minority" is an adjective instead.
Can probably lose the "however"
"Gavel-to-gavel coverage" feels a bit informal / slangy
The abrupt switch to WITI in para 3 is confusing at first if you don't already know what WITI is. Maybe revise the opening sentence to make it more obvious that WITI is a Milwaukee station? "In 1994, the Milwaukee CBS affiliate WITI announced it would switch to Fox."?

Launch

Link/explain UHF on first appearance for the ignorant (ie me)
"commission then took applications" - lose "then", you don't need it
The first and only mention of Zodiac is them getting rejected - I think either they need to be mentioned before, or removed as irrelevant
"gave the nod" also feels informal
"new company had entered" - lose "had" here
"Torres served..." these 3 sentences should be their own paragraph, as they're a separate thought from the paragraph they're currently attached to
Also, when did Torres serve from? When did he get forced out? When did he sue?
- I can't fix all of this myself as the sourcing doesn't include it.
We may want to have context for Dahmer - a) that he was a serial killer and b) that he was a local boy and that's why everyone in Milwaukee cared about the trial
"However, WDJT-TV's presence" - "however" isn't needed; you can combine this sentence with the next instead for more impact

CBS

"in which most of New World's stations would become of that network" - I don't know how to rewrite this, but "become of" reads weirdly
- Oh, that's a missing word.
I'm not sure the pull quote is necessary, as it adds a lot of attribution clutter to an already dense sentence. Can it be paraphrased?
What was Sinclair's "stock in trade" that they wanted to preserve? It's not clear
Actually, backing up a second here now that I'm through the paragraph, I think the level of detail about WCGV-TV is a bit much in an article not about them. Really all we need is that they didn't want to be the CBS guys and that left the floor open for WDJT.
This is a style thing, but you could combine "CBS first attempted the latter" with the next sentence for less choppiness
Not sure the detail about the attempt to buy WVCY-TV is needed either, especially the pull quotes.
"Even though CBS..." more detail not really about WDJT
"With just two weeks to go..." does this need to be a separate paragraph? It feels related to the previous one

Gonna respond to some of the detail level items (I am making an effort to reduce some of the excess detail). This section asks a question that involves all these stations and was followed quite intensely: "How did CBS get here in Milwaukee?" CBS had some very convoluted losses in the New World switch that required, or almost required, creative affiliate building. It's a glancing blow of a topic for WCGV and WVCY. But it's the defining event in channel 58's history. In no other large market hit by New World et al. did a major network come this close to simply not having a local affiliate. The parent article on the topic, 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, is a 10,000-word epic for which half the articles I write could feasibly contribute new sources, so I can't exactly put this there, either.

Sorry, but I still think it's too much about Sinclair. That whole paragraph has pretty much nothing to do with WDJT and doesn't add to the reader's understanding of WDJT. The latter half of the paragraph is especially unnecessary. Having all this detail about another station is confusing, especially with the numerous 4-letter W--- acronyms. Since GACR 3b asks for articles to remain focused, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more trimming. All the reader really needs to know for the purpose of understanding the story of WDJT is that Sinclair didn't want to be a CBS affiliate, leaving either a longshot or WDJT.

I've thinned this out further, Premeditated Chaos. (Diff) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding

"However, the dispute" I don't think you need this "however"
"Despite having built itself up considerably, the station has continued to be a ratings work-in-progress trailing its competitors,[59] in spite of a move to channel 5 on most local cable systems in 1998." This whole sentence needs a bit of work.
- You have two instances of "in spite of" type phrasings sandwiching the ratings bit.
- "Built itself up" is somewhat unclear about what it's referring to
- "ratings work-in-progress trailing its competitors" feels editorial and repetitive.
- I might rearrange to something like "Despite ongoing investments in news and broadcast capabilities and its 1998 move to channel 5 on most local cable systems, the station continued to trail its competitors in ratings."
"One bright spot" this also feels editorial. I'm not exactly sure how I'd want to reword. Perhaps "The station had success with..."?

Subchannels and news operation

Link home shopping?
Is "however" needed in para 2?
"three of Weigel's local stations in total" - you don't need "in total" here

Mostly style nitpicks, although there were a few instances where I felt we were getting off topic. No other GACR issues - no CV/close paraphrasing, images are licensed correctly, spot checks checked out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Made many of the changes. I've tried to reduce/reword a bit in the whole "who's gonna be CBS" section, but I also feel like that is germane material to the article for reasons I list above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above to that. The rest of the changes look fine; that's the remaining sticking point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.