Talk:KTTL

A few notes
Sorry, this is a lot of commentary, but the article is worth it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the lead needs rewriting. The second sentence is just a bit too long, and what is missing is the "afterwards"--1986 was a long time ago (I miss it very much--I had a Sony DD2, and weighed 20 pounds less). The lead should summarize the entire article; now there isn't all that much after 1986, but still; and I think the change of the call sign needs to be made explicit in there. Do not be afraid to make a (boring) chronological summary.
 * 2) I am not sure what a "competitive hearing" is.
 * 3) Haha, I was going to say that maybe the proposed hook was a tad strong but WTF? people said this? On the f***ing radio?? Ha, thanks for not sweeping that under the rug.
 * 4) I think I know what you mean with "The Babbs's rejection of the value of money resulted in them refusing to pay their 1981 property taxes"--they were some crazy anti-gubbermint couple, I suppose, but that bears spelling out a bit more, by restating what is now the subject of the sentence as a complete independent clause, for instance. BTW what they rejected, I assume, wasn't the value of money, but money in general.
 * 5) "they were garnished for the station's actions"--unclear what that means.
 * 6) "a volume of mail" can be more clearly quantified. "a ton" is probably too colloquial, but "volume" doesn't really work.
 * 7) "Aside from the racist programs" is maybe not technically a dangling modifier, but it isn't elegant. Please find a parallel with "local residents claimed".
 * 8) the suspicious accident warrants a few more words.
 * 9) "they returned in late September"--who "they" is is not clear; the closest antecedent is the two broadcasts that were dropped.
 * Oh, you need to make clear that the Babbses "are" Cattle Country, at least until their divorce (?).
 * So, if I understand it correctly (the final paragraphs are packed), the thing died in 1986? "this application was supported" isn't the most clear way of stating that.
 * 1) Finally, I think it would be a good idea to divide that lengthy history section into some subsections; the renewal, the relaunch, and the demise are maybe good points for divisions.


 * Here are my replies to a couple of these that are harder to fix or improve...


 * A "comparative hearing" is a type of FCC hearing (not used since 1993) in which applications for a given frequency would be considered together and the FCC would make a decision. Comparative hearings were very common when multiple applicants sought the same frequency, as happened with KTTL.
 * It's not clear what the garnishment is in the original source, to be honest.


 * I hope these and the edits I just made help address these concerns Raymie (t • c) 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)