Talk:TVX Broadcast Group/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 04:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Should start on this one hopefully tomorrow local time, but might be a bit later. I don't see any obvious issues, though will have at least a couple comments and haven't yet checked sources. Vaticidalprophet 04:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead and early years

 * The group soon became Television Corporation Stations—though abbreviated TVX -- some context possible on how this was abbreviated in an unintuitive way?
 * Beats me. There is no material to go on.
 * To clarify -- were FCC decisions generally unanimous, i.e. how remarkable was this dissent? Is needing to argue and win a case "something fairly common" or "something very rare"? Is winning it when you've argued it common or rare? There's some context missing here.
 * I mean, they had to convince the commission it was in the public interest. Back then, a commissioner dissent wasn't all that rare.
 * The first paragraph of "early years" is a bit disproportionate in length, because it covers two separate things (the station application/construction and the people who set it up). It could naturally be split at The investors secured the services of John A. Trinder...
 * Done
 * Using the term-of-art "general entertainment" to describe WTVZ's broadcasting mix doesn't quite get it across to the general reader, who is more inclined to conflate "general" and "generic" and come away with roughly the opposite perspective to the actual alternative-options they tried to offer. It might be useful to do more show-don't-tell here -- the sources give particular examples (e.g. imported British shows that hadn't previously aired in the market).
 * Tried to punch this up.
 * Noticed while reading through McStations for "Southern expansion": the broad story of how the company was founded and built, not just the raw process of applying for a station, is fairly under-covered here. Loving isn't even namedropped until pretty far into the article (and not this section). Partially this and the lack of clarity on the dissent are side effects of covering two different things in one paragraph -- it's simultaneously right now an overlong paragraph and one that isn't particularly in-depth on either of its subjects. You have, for instance, a run-on-half-sentence with McDonald required six months of coaxing to be lured away from Washington and only agreed because he was made president and general manager and the investors were willing to expand beyond one station, which blends in with the text around it without really getting across the spirit of the whole affair.
 * Split.
 * It took seven months for WTVZ to turn a profit -- could set off as "only" seven months? (I recognize "how long is normal" is a hopelessly how-long-is-a-piece-of-string question, but without context on a more "average range" it takes reaching the end of the sentence to realize this is being called an unusually short timeframe.)
 * Did "just" seven months.

Southern expansion

 * TVX continued to add a station a year by building is a little obscured (I'd write "one new station a year, building").
 * wanted to sell in Sunbelt cities Sun Belt is usually rendered with the space, right? It's also probably worth linking.
 * One thing McStations emphasizes is that McDonald's/TVX's vision was a lot more stripped-down/unglamorous than a lot of people elsewhere thought the broadcasting business "should be", which seems worth noting.
 * There were also two additional attempts at expansion that were unsuccessful. "Two attempts at expansion were unsuccessful" -- the rest of this is additional words without clarifying meaning.
 * We don't give any dates at all in the last paragraph, which makes it difficult to contextualize within the timeframe of other purchases.
 * Both sentences about the failed purchases start with "It...", while the first one should probably start with "TVX...".
 * wound up settling with three other applicants for the channel -- clarify? This is a little jargony.
 * Worth clarifying for the general reader why they wanted to qualify as a minority licensee under FCC distress sale rules, as the source does. (Because this is an article about a defunct broadcasting company, I'm not as concerned with defining terms or similar general-accessibility as I would be for an article on an active station where readers are pretty likely to be familiar with only their local stations -- people sitting down to read 2000 words about a defunct broadcasting company probably know something about the topic. People encounter articles for all sorts of reasons, though, and this one is prominently linked in a lot of articles about active stations; the fact you go through DYK also means your articles are guaranteed to have a burst of readers who may not be familiar with all concepts.)

Taft purchase

 * even before Black Monday -- can we do "the Black Monday crash"?
 * TVX also sold one other station under very different circumstances can be restructured to flow more naturally as "TVX sold another station under..." or similar.

Postscript: Tim McDonald would have a fascinating article, wouldn't he? Vaticidalprophet 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Definitely. @Vaticidalprophet First round of changes mostly done. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)