Talk:WYFF: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

	WYFF has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 5, 2025 Good article nominee Listed

Is Chris Justus and Chase related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:5E7E:C444:4116:82D:3052:D80A (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WYFF4logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page or have a reference to establish their notability. This is the current consensus procedure, based on discussions at WP:WikiProject Television Stations and at the Village Pump. The rationales are as follows:

1. Most importantly, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is “not an indiscriminate collection of information.” As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn’t necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I’m not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
3. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
4. Per WP:NLIST, lists included within articles (including people’s names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of info, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company’s article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:WYFF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks follow, most of which are basically that it assumes knowledge of the US:

• west of US 276: west of highway US 276
  • I am going to object on this one as a common name/reference issue. The US numbered routes are referred to this way most frequently.
• most notably two Greenville radio stations:…: add as well as (info of third owner)- I feel if it say three way merger in lead, it should describe it in lead, even if it was not as big as the other two.
• Under Pulitzer and Hearst ownership: change, as lead forgets to mention how Hearst became owner
• The name continued until 2009,: slightly confusing, perhaps “the name of the company continued until 2009”?

References and images fine- everything fine. Make the changes, and I’ll do a spot check and pass the article. HSLover/DWF (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing the spot check now, as the prose is not going to change. Checking 10 refs:

• [1]: checks out, gives the technical information and it’s accurate
• [7]: checks out, mentions construction and NBC
• [13]: checks out, along with ref 14
• [19]: checks out, along with ref 20
• [25]: checks out, gives a history of the whole thing, and mentions the annex in the late 70s
• [31]: checks out, along with ref 32
• [37]: checks out, mentions the change, and also how it will work
• [42]: checks out, mentions the award and what the show was about
• [49]: checks out, mentions him and how important he was to WYFF
• [56]: checks out, gives the accurate technical information

Spot check checks out, make the changes and I will pass the article. Well done, Sammi Brie.HSLover/DWF (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, passed it- keep up the good work, Sammi Brie! HSLover/DWF (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·