Talk:WBPX-TV/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments
Looks to be a decently interesting topic, and pretty well-sourced. Should finish this review in a day or two. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:2008 04 21 boston infrastructure 31 (2445914542).jpg
 * Looks good, doesn't seem to be Flickr-washing.
 * File:Christian Science Church and Reflection, Boston, Massachusetts.JPG
 * Reasonable own-work claim.
 * Would've suggested adding their logo, but I actually can't find one at their website, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * It's practice in TVS that stations with no local programming don't use the network logo. Keep in mind that WBPX is little more than a license, some equipment on a rack, and a transmitter and antenna these days; the main studio is actually the Ion operations center in Florida. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No issues here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The subscription television years

 * First paragraph: fine, though some is referenced to primary sources (which look to be common throughout the article - not ideal, but not a huge issue).
 * Welcome to the world of FCC history cards.
 * Second paragraph: also looks good, sourced accurately to historic newspapers (also lol, took a decade, this station really got off to a great start /s).
 * It's pretty clear that the reason they took so long was for the STV technology to mature, quite honestly.
 * Third paragraph:
 * this ref is kinda iffy - just an ad clipping.
 * The rest looks good - perhaps ref 9 could support ref 7?
 * It really doesn't...
 * Forth paragraph:
 * Maybe Satellite Television and Associated Resources is a potential good redlink, since it looks like they owned multiple stations at some point?
 * Done...I bet I could find enough for a new article on them.
 * Everything else is fine.
 * Fifth paragraph:
 * this feels a bit synthym, since the source doesn't mention channel 68.
 * See "Starcase" right near the top. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The rest is fine.
 * Sixth paragraph: no issues.

"Where the Stars Shine"

 * The quote: relevant, appropriately sourced, valid fair-use (no issues).
 * First paragraph:
 * Since Financial News Network is abbreviated as FNN later, maybe introduce it as "Financial News Network (FNN)"? Confused me for a second.
 * Otherwise, looks good.
 * Second paragraph:
 * - what source covers everything after ref 23?
 * It's one of those weird "connective tissue to the next section" pieces...
 * Ah, I see now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

here, did the first section, feel free to address the things I raised here while I work on the rest of the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor ownership

 * First paragraph: no issues, assuming good faith on the Fiedler ref (same goes for other newspaper refs without clippings).
 * Second paragraph: no issues
 * Quote: relevant and appropriately sourced - no issues
 * Third paragraph: no issues (agf on the book refs)
 * Forth paragraph: no issues
 * Fifth paragraph: curious about - the relevant article doesn't say that it's 42-part (though the article is poor, so I wouldn't be too surprised by an inaccuracy, but I'd like some clarification). Everything else looks good.
 * That is from Bridge, p. 112. jawiki seems to indicate 42 total episodes were produced... Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Saving now before reviewing the subsections. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Monitor Channel

 * The quote: no issues
 * First paragraph: no issues
 * Second paragraph: https://story.com/Archive-BC/BC-1990/BC-1990-09-03.pdf (ref 47) is a deadlink. Otherwise fine.
 * Third paragraph: no issues
 * Forth paragraph: no issues
 * Second quote: no issues
 * Fifth paragraph:
 * this seems like improper grammar - it's a comma-separated list with two items.
 * this is kinda clunky - I'd write
 * grammar - seems like there's a word missing before "offered"
 * Sixth paragraph: no issues

looked at this section Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, first one was a typo! Somehow, "worldradiohi" got lost from the URL... Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Demise of the Monitor Channel and sale of WQTV

 * The quote: no issues
 * First paragraph: executives is a bit ambiguous here, I'd mention that they're executives of the station
 * Second paragraph: no issues
 * Third paragraph: no issues
 * Forth paragraph: this feels redundant to the previous paragraph. I'd cut it and mention WQTV directly in the next sentence instead
 * Fifth paragraph: no issues

I'll try getting to the next section of the article soon. (wow, half a billion dollars on a TV channel, jeez) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Boston University ownership

 * The quote: no issues
 * First paragraph: I'd introduce the initialism - "Boston University (BU)" - in the first paragraph, to make it clearer what is being referred to throughout the rest of the section
 * Second paragraph: no issues
 * Third paragraph: no issues
 * Forth paragraph: no issues
 * Fifth paragraph: no issues
 * Sixth paragraph: no issues

Overall I do find some of this a bit hard to follow - mainly because I'm asking questions like "who is Kevin Dunn?" - but since we don't have articles on these people, I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to redlink as most searches bring up someone else and unless you're interested in writing about these tangential topics it's unlikely they ever get covered here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Pax and Ion ownership
I'm kinda confused here. I don't see how exactly WABU became WBPX - the first paragraph here implies that "WBPX channel 46" (linked to a different station) was already a thing? So I'm kinda not making the connection here. Can this be clarified? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First paragraph: link Fox Sports Net New England?
 * Second paragraph: no issues
 * Third paragraph: The source doesn't mention WBPX at all, I think.
 * I already linked to Fox Sports Net New England earlier in the article, but given the name change between for that entity, I've linked them in. I added an offline source for #3. Pax had launched August 31, 1998, on a different station which used the same call letters. Also made the changes in the above section: JCS Sports is probably notable (and I might write about them) as having held the Red Sox TV rights for a year. Here's an excerpt from a different Herald article:


 * , let me know what you think. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, that clarified it much better. Thanks! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The rest of this section looks fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Digital television

 * This looks to be a standard section across similar articles - doesn't have a ref, the rest is fine.

Former translators

 * Maybe try to work this into previous sections (it's not clear when this started). If it can't be, that's fine.

Lead

 * Seems to be an accurate summary of the article, employing LEADCITE.

just a few other minor things and I can pass this article - I don't see a reason to put it formally on hold since you've been pretty quick about addressing these. Nice article! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't really do much with the former translators because there would be very few RSs. The general history I've been able to piece together, mostly on forum and newsgroup (!) posts: WMPX-LP in Dennis was established by a Cape Cod outfit in the early 80s to rebroadcast WQTV. W40BO had been owned by Paxson back when its closest station was ch. 60 Merrimack NH and it needed a booster; it does seem to have had a pre-Paxson history but nothing talks about it. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * makes sense. If there isn't really much more content that can be reliably-sourced, keeping the section as-is is fine. I think the article has some scope issues because it's a combination of two topics sort of - the station that broadcasts on channel 68 in Boston, and the one known as "WBPX". Though it's mainly the former, some of the content, especially later in the article, is more the later (I guess it's more of an issue of naming - since we name it after the latter).
 * Regardless, this is more of a large-scale thing and not particularly relevant to this review. So, let me get out the official table thing and promote this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is more of a large-scale thing and not particularly relevant to this review. So, let me get out the official table thing and promote this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Final
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice article, promoting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice article, promoting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice article, promoting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice article, promoting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)