Talk:WJZY/GA1: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

 

Line 16: Line 16:

::::Thanks for fixing stuff up! I am aware of [[User:Sammi Brie/Pipeline]]… Are they pretty much all GA ready? Full review incoming [[User:It is a wonderful world|IAWW]] ([[User talk:It is a wonderful world|talk]]) 16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for fixing stuff up! I am aware of [[User:Sammi Brie/Pipeline]]… Are they pretty much all GA ready? Full review incoming [[User:It is a wonderful world|IAWW]] ([[User talk:It is a wonderful world|talk]]) 16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes @[[User:It is a wonderful world|It is a wonderful world]] and I actually have decided on my next batch of nominees. I’ve made the first set of GA changes too (up to “pushed up its launch”). [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style=”color:#ba4168″>Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her · [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes @[[User:It is a wonderful world|It is a wonderful world]] and I actually have decided on my next batch of nominees. I’ve made the first set of GA changes too (up to “pushed up its launch”). [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style=”color:#ba4168″>Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her · [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::@[[User:It is a wonderful world|It is a wonderful world]] I will have to get to the TSI issues—this looks like a whale—but did you mean to undo a bunch of my changes with one of your edits ([[Special:Diff/1324249597]])? [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style=”color:#ba4168″>Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her · [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 17:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

=== Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) {{cloc}} ===

=== Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) {{cloc}} ===

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the last of this batch 🙂 IAWW (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sammi Brie, I found several issues with the source-text integrity of this, and I noticed some other issues very uncharacteristic of your nominations (uncited passages and grammar errors) on a quick look through. The lead also looks a bit short compared to the length of the article. Details on the spot checks are below. I note it has been a couple years since you made any major edits to this, and your authorship is lower than normal, so I suspect it has suffered from entropy. Could you clean this up before I do a full review? If you have the time and inclination to do that in the next week, I’ll keep this review open, otherwise it may be best to close the review and you can work on it outside of the GA system. IAWW (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not pinging yet, but I have done the first half of changes needed. Basically coming at this and cleaning pieces up that I’d write differently now. I will note a user who can load pages up with mush with the best of them lives in Charlotte and has been a bit of a headache in some pages in this market. The consummation notice piece may be hard to replace. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what was salvageable and what wasn’t, @It is a wonderful world. I’ve taken the chance to improve some things to more current spec and add a few things here and there. It still might be a bit bumpier than my typical GAN. Luckily for you, I can snap my fingers and summon 20 more GANs to fill my empty coffers… Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing stuff up! I am aware of User:Sammi Brie/Pipeline… Are they pretty much all GA ready? Full review incoming IAWW (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @It is a wonderful world and I actually have decided on my next batch of nominees. I’ve made the first set of GA changes too (up to “pushed up its launch”). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world I will have to get to the TSI issues—this looks like a whale—but did you mean to undo a bunch of my changes with one of your edits (Special:Diff/1324249597)? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine groups applied for the channel,[4] including Piedmont Crescent Broadcasting Company, which included Harvey Gantt, the mayor of Charlotte, and officials associated with local radio station WPEG and its owner, the Suburban Radio Group: This should use some more varied punctuation or be split into two sentences to make it easier to parse.

which settled with the other applicants: Can “settled” be linked?

Not necessary. I should have put it in suggestions. I think it’s just about technical enough to be linked but you can choose whether to link it or not. IAWW (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to do so, it had to divest itself of two Charlotte-market radio stations: I think a short explanation of why would be appropriate here.

Channel 46 pushed up its launch: Is this meant to mean they lauched earlier or later?

I think the way you reworded the last paragraph is very clear and understandable to a less technical reader.

“WMYT” can be linked I think

Several issues raised in the spot check

“time brokerage agreement” can be linked

The deal included a time brokerage agreement: Make it clear we are back to talking about the sale of WJZY to FOX.

The deal included a time brokerage agreement clause that would have had Fox take over the operations of WJZY and WMYT and acquire the duopoly’s non-license assets for $8.24 million if the deal was not closed by June 1: Why is this relevant? It seems to be just a clause in a legal agreement that was never carried out.

WCCB announced that it would become the new CW affiliate for the Charlotte market on July 1, the date its Fox affiliation contract ended: I think this would be better in a footnote since it isn’t strongly related to WJZY

“2022” season can be linked to “2022 Carolina Panthers season”

This section seems to treat the WBTV newscasts as more noteworthy than newscasts produced by other stations and hosted on WJZY. I don’t see any justification for that. From the perspective of WJZY, it seems that a leased newscast is just a leased newscast? Some specific examples:

• The first sentence mentions only the WBTV newscasts
• “The 1990s attempt”: Running WBTV newscasts are an “attempt” (I’m not really sure what that means), but the WTVI newscasts were not?

I hope I’m being clear enough here.

The newscasts on WTVI belong in the articles on WBTV and WTVI (neither of which have gotten a rewrite). The point of this being a level-3 header is to distinguish the three separate times WJZY had news produced by WBTV from the newscasts WJZY now produces itself. I’ve also added some refs about the 1990s attempt. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world: Also pinging since I did changes up through this section. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood something when I wrote the above point. The way you have rewritten this section makes it much clearer and I see no issues now. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in the form of live webcasts nightly through year’s end: Missing verb IAWW (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having the highly-viewed Fox primetime lineup as its lead-in, the station continued to lose viewers at 10 p.m. to WAXN and WCCB, while the station’s morning news was in fifth place among Charlotte stations and airings of The People’s Court on sister station WMYT had slightly better ratings than WJZY’s 6 p.m. news: I think this would be better split into two sentences, or at least punctuated better. IAWW (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

airings of The People’s Court on sister station WMYT had slightly better ratings than WJZY’s 6 p.m. news:

• This is overdetail in my opinion
• “slightly better ratings” is incorrect. The source says: “WJZY’s 6 p.m. news audience, according to Nielsen, is around 5,700 viewers, only a third of the number of people watching “People’s Court” at that hour on its sister station WMYT (Channel 55).” IAWW (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“retreated to the formula it once mocked: chasing fire trucks and standard urban crime”: The source says: “chasing fire trucks and illustrating the police scanner.” IAWW (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

though the station had expanded its local output to 11+1⁄2 hours a day on weekdays: Since WCCB and WJZY are both mentioned in the preceding clause, it’s not completely clear what “the station” refers to. IAWW (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check numbers based on this version.

[29a]:

• Doesn’t support the contrasting “Although Fox”…
• the network was interested in buying a station in a steadily growing market: Not supported
• another factor was that Charlotte: It was the only factor mentioned in the source
• another factor was that Charlotte was home to the Carolina Panthers, a National Football Conference team whose games air primarily on Fox; Abernethy said that Fox had set its sights on getting an owned-and-operated station in Charlotte specifically because it was an NFC market: Can be much more concise
• The acronym “NFC” needs to be defined

[29b]: Everything this supports is out of scope in my opinion. The text also has similar issues to [29a].

[7]:

• “Originally, the station received the call sign WMHU” is not supported
• “with an option to purchase the remainder later in February 1986” is not supported. The source doesn’t say it was an option.
• “later in February 1986” is unclear. I read it as Capitol would buy the rest of the stock in February 1986, but that is incorrect.

[12a]:

• “It initially only aired a schedule of older movies”: Source doesn’t support that they were “older”
• Noting that this ref includes the info about the Capitol having an option to buy the rest of the station
• “Cablevision of Charlotte, for instance, dropped WDCA of Washington, D.C., to air the new station” is not fully supported
• “airing a general entertainment format of off-network and first-run syndicated shows, movies, and cartoons” goes a bit beyond the source

[23]: Minor, but it doesn’t support that Capitol announced the change

[38]: Y

[51]: Doesn’t support “which took effect on January 10, 2022”

I think this needs a full TSI check to be honest. Almost every citation I checked had issues, and I stumbled across additional TSI issues in the prose review. IAWW (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig finds nothing. Will check further on the spot check.

Covers the station’s entire lifespan

No issues with the tagging or free-use rationales

The captions need citations. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to drop them altogether. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]