Wikipedia:Peer review/Paramount Television Network/archive1

Paramount Television Network

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA, but may need additional work to reach FA. Comments on clarity and prose suggestions are especially appreciated.

Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good solid TV history, copiously referenced. Only one image; I agree that non-free use of the logo is justified. A few specific comments:-

• Lead: I think that the general nature of the clash between Paramount and DuMont ("one of the most unfortunate and dramatic episodes..." etc) should be indicated in the lead.

Thank you. I've worked on expanding on this. Please review for prose and clarity.

Expanded wording is fine (note: no spaces around mdashes - I have fixed) Looking at the lead again, a couple of extra points occur tome. The description "ill-fated" in the first line seems judgemental, non-neutral. Perhaps it would be better avoided. Secondly, since we know who "one television historian is", why not name him? Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Origins
  • "Paramount was the party of several anti-trust lawsuits..." Odd phrasing. Perhaps "target" rather than party?

Switched, thank you. The alternate wording suggestion was particularly helpful.

• • Prose suggestion: some sentences would have more impact if their phrasing was "flipped". An example is "Executives at Paramount Pictures were interested in what was then the new medium of television as early as 1937." This might read better as "As early as 1937 executives at Paramount Pictures were interested in what was then the new medium of television."

Switched. (Actually, your suggested wording was what I had written months ago, and was kept in the article until this week, when I switched it at the recommendation of an automated grammar checking site).

My xperience of such sites is that they murder prose. Stick to your instincts! Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The "as early as" form is used again in the next sentence. Try to find an alternative phrasing.

Thanks. I've given 'by' a try.

• • "emceed"; I know what this means, but it seems informal, even slangy, for an encyclopedia

Replaced with "hosted"; I rather liked "emceed", though.

Yeah, it's a good word, but we poor encyclopedia writer-drudges have to rein in our vocabularies, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...opened up the possibility that they might become..." - a double tentative! Perhaps "might" should be amended to "would"?

Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I can't seem to spot in my own writing.

• Launch
  • "...or when none of the four networks' programs were particularly good." This seems a very subjective criterion. Who decided if programs were not "particularly good"?

Station managers; this was during a time when large blocks of network programming were basically just "filler". Still, I've reworded, per your advice.

• • "Federal Communications Commission" already linked and initials already explained

Removed.

• • Is "O&Os" (with ampersand) a recognised abbreviation of "owned-and-operated stations"?

if you mean in a traditional dictionary: I checked Webster's and it's not there. But in the broadcast industry and the sources used, it is definitely a recognized term.

OK, then you should add ("O&O") to the first mention of owned-and-operated stations. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Affiliates
  • The US map should have a summary caption

Done.

For clarity the caption should add something like: "Each symbol represents a receiving station". Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The main table: I was initially confused by the double format, but I think this is just to save space. The resultant gap between text and table is a bit of a problem, as is the absence of any date information in the table, which makes it difficult to interpret.

Yes, the double format was intended to save space, as I did not want the table to overwhelm the article, but felt the table was highly useful for the few (niche) readers who will come to this article. No source anywhere gives exact dates for the affiliations; early U.S. TV history was a mess until gradually being straightened out starting in the 1990s. The years during which a series aired on a local station have only been included when absolutely necessary (ie, where there would otherwise have been reader confusion about overlapping affiliations, like both KPIX and KGO-TV in San Francisco airing The Harry Owens Show).

Is the gap you are talking about the white space between "not shown in the table below" and the table itself? It looks tiny in my browser at my screen resolution, but I understand it might be much larger in other resolutions and in other browsers. If this is the gap you're talking about, I might be able to fill in a little more text.

Yes, that's the one. The gap is not huge on my resolution, but it's big enough to detach the table from the text. If you can add relevant text that might help. Otherwise, give the table a summary title. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• End of network
  • Initials, e.g. UPT, should always be given after first mention of the full name.

Done, thank you.

• • Yet another link on Federal Communications Commission

Fixed, thank you.

• • "Paramount executives, however, cavalierly denied..." This non-neutral wording needs to be attributed, or withdrawn if it is editorial comment.

Withdrawn, as it was my own wording.

• • "The ruling "ensured that television broadcasting would be controlled by the same three companies that had dominated radio broadcasting, thus fostering a lack of diversity in both station and network ownership" Important statements like this need to be attributed, as well as cited.

Already cited, now attributed. Thank you.

• • "historians such as McNeil..." Give full name.

Done.

• • "In a dramatic move..." Another instance of non-neutral phrasing.

Not sure how to phrase it more neutrally. This was the moment when Paramount cleaned out the house at DuMont with the hostile takeover. It was definitely dramatic. I did not include any of the scene with Dr. DuMont sobbing, as I felt this might be difficult to word neutrally. I am open to suggestions, though.

Let it go. Neutrality doesn't have to mean 100% bland. Brianboulton (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• References: some inconsistency in access dates for online sources. For example, compare [196] and [212] (other examples exist).

Reference #196 uses template:Cite journal, as Billboard is primarily a periodical; a URL was included for easier verification by the reader. Reference #212 uses template:Cite web, as it is only available on the Internet. I could remove the links to Billboard, but then it would be more difficult for the reader (or future editors) to verify.

You can use the same date formats in cite journal and cite web (I always do). Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me via my talkpage if you need to discuss any of these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I greatly appreciate your reading of the article, and the suggestions for improvement, which I've tried to incorporate. I'll ping your talk page as well, but I do want to thank you for your thorough efforts reviewing this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)