Jump to content

Talk:WPEC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All right, what's going on here?

[edit]

The links for John Bachman, Nick Foley, John Matthews, and Pat Murphy because they point to the wrong persons. For now, I changed the links so that (WPEC) supersedes each person's name, but this REALLY needs to be worked out. -- M (speak/spoken) 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BHayes07; I guess we didn't really need those links anyway. -- M (speak/spoken) 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Weat12a.jpg

[edit]

Image:Weat12a.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Wflx weather 2008.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WPEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (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.

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Content and prose review

[edit]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

  • Lead: will need to comment on completeness later.
  • the station has slipped from second to third in news ratings. this sentence seems to need more context: ratings among what? TV stations in Florida? In West Palm Beach?
  • WPEC: we have success provided the funding to acquire WPEC before changed its call sign to WPEC; could you clarify?

Need sleep, more later. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third one is a great catch. Thanks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affiliation switch: CBS had lured WPEC "lured" sounds almost nefarious to me. Is there a more neutral way to phrase this?
    • Rephrased.
  • Link WPTV and perhaps explain more what they are
    • See below.
  • Freedom Communications ownership: seeing interest in possibly buying additional stations dashed by rising prices whose interest is this? Perhaps you can disentangle the first sentence a bit to clarify Dreyfoos' intentions.
    • Rephrased.
  • the company's remaining business I assume this is still related to other photo and laser printing stuff?
  • "Color analyzers for photo finishing labs".
  • When had Dreyfoos bought the Mergens stake?
    • I meant to write "in 1994" instead of "in WPEC". Oops!
  • Sinclair ownership: link Sinclair Broadcast Group.
  • News operation: MacArthur's general disinvestment in news gave WPTV a significant head start in news coverage can you provide more context? WPTV has not been properly introduced yet. Do you want to say that they existed before 1989 and were an important news outlet before 1973?
    • Yes. I've given WPTV a better introduction earlier in the article.
  • You could actually link all of the TV stations again; as all of their names are so similar I need to ctrl-F a lot to figure out who they are.
  • the 1981 shakeup why "the"? This is the first time 1981 is mentioned so this doesn't refer to anything prior.
    • It was in the History section; decided for a bit more summary here.
  • With all the locations mentioned, a map of the local area and broadcast ranges would be great, but certainly not required at GA level. (My experience of Florida is limited to once driving from Miami to the Everglades and back).
    • A signal contour map could be done, but that's not the highest-level consideration for me right now. It's worth thinking about, though. It probably, in context, would be a flavor of the map in WTVJ with the WPEC contour added. It'd explain why CBS needed WPEC, for sure.
  • The market's news ratings race tightened in the 2000s, when WPBF improved its product who was leading then? I don't quite understand the situation and who WPBF is, we haven't heard much of them.
  • lead: WTCN-CD and WWHB-CD are only mentioned in lead and infobox; similarly the transmitter. These seem to be lacking citations. Might be better to mention them in the body as well?
    • The technical information in the infobox has an automatically generated citation, actually because of precisely this issue. I've added a mainline lead ref to WTCN and WWHB, as well.
      • Er, the body now talks about "WTCN-CA" and "WWHB-CA". Is that the same as -CD? (sorry, I am still very clueless about American TV).
  • Other than that I am reasonably happy with the lead.
  • We only get viewership information about the station in terms of news; is that because this is their only original programming?
    • Yes. Total-day ratings are rarely published these days; heck, news ratings are harder to find than ever. (One problem that is growing is that the local news media care less and the specialty media are shrinking. This is shaping my ability to cover stations especially in recent years.)

First pass done, will look at sources and comment on criteria next. —Kusma (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

[edit]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1267835437 Random numbers 5 15 28 33 50 54 62 73 77.

  • 5: ok
  • 15: ok
  • 28: ok
  • 33: ok
  • 50: ok
  • 54: ok. "An example of 1980s activism". Not sure how many fired anchors have people picketing for them...
  • 62a: ok
  • 73: ok, but we don't have anything other than "she worked here".
  • 77: ok

Spot checks clear. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
  • A few prose points would benefit from clarifications, see above.
  • A few comments on lead section above.
  • Sources are mostly reliable newspapers, all nicely clipped or archived, very pleasant to use.
  • Could not detect OR or CLOP issues.
  • Happy with scope and neutrality/stability.
  • Images: Logo is fine. Studio image is free. ALT text would be nice, but certainly optional.

Another well-researched article on a TV station, should not be hard to fix the couple of small issues. —Kusma (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@Kusma: Looks like you were finishing up right as I was working on addressing all your issues. There is alt text for both images. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you are right, sorry. I try to use WP:NAVPOP to see ALT text and did not notice that it showed me nothing at all, not just no ALT text... —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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.

The result was: promoted by Bunnypranav talk 14:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 734 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The nomination for this article appears to qualify under the newly-passed GA criteria, with this occurring on January 7, while the nominator has completed the QPQ requirement (or seemed to be in the process of doing so). The hook itself includes a reliable source, is interesting, and meets the character-count guidelines. I believe this is good to go.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WPEC&oldid=1268330901"