Talk:WDCW/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Will start on this tonight or tomorrow. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving it here for now. Will pick up tomorrow at WFTY. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, full review up now. I hope this doesn't come off as if I think there's a huge amount to fix. The article's in great shape overall. But proofreader/copy-editor has been, at times, my day job, and TV news and D.C. history are both areas of interest for me, so I have a lot of little thoughts. On that note, I've flagged one potential jargon issue, but if any of my own suggestions seem to assume too much reader familiarity with broadcasting, let me know. I grew up in a household where critiquing TV channels, news and entertainment, was a routine part of dinner conversation, so I'm trying to balance for that.   --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, just about done then! Some people might have stronger feelings about the breach-of-contract thing, but I don't really, so I'm fine leaving that as a "meh". Glad you agree on announcement recentism—one subtle pet peeve of mine. Well, think we're mostly good to go then, with one remaining question of, per your comments below, whether it would make sense to redlink Hill. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin I kind of know that there'd be another editor in the field who'd revert me until I had the redlink in place. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a pass either way, so y'know what, I'll add the redlink myself and we'll see what happens.   --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Criterion 1

 * Is there a reason "section" is used in the lede to describe Glover Park and Tenleytown, rather than, say, "neighborhood"?
 * Reworded
 * What's a comparative hearing?
 * The FCC's longstanding (1930s–90s) process for wading through competing radio and TV applications. I need to write an article at that location someday. This has come up at several GA reviews. For now, it's linked to a glossary entry.
 * : Is it correct to use "independent" as a noun this way? Even if so, seems a bit jargony.
 * It is, but in the lead honestly I shouldn't.
 * Synecdochially referring to Miller as "the bandleader", having not used that label to describe him before, is confusing. Either change to "conductor" as before, or call him by his name. Also, is "would" necessary here? There's no jump between timeframes.
 * Reworded
 * : This bounces back and forth a lot. Could we make the logic more linear? Something like ... because he had lived in Washington for 29 years, unlike Miller, who ...
 * Reworded
 * : Nested subordinate clauses, a bit hard to follow. Maybe either use dashes or use "Black telecommunications consultant" as a pseudo-title for Ledbetter?
 * Reworded
 * : "also" and "another" seem redundant.
 * Reworded
 * : Bit of a garden-path sentence, suggesting October dashed the plans. Maybe a semicolon?
 * Reworded
 * Should "breach of contract" be hyphenated as a compound noun?
 * Hmm, I don't...think so?
 * : Both the parenthetical and the part before it are complete sentences, so it should be ... to air. (Twelve days... However, might it make more sense to put that rather tangential parenthetical in an efn? Just a thought.
 * I've definitely been using efns more since I originally wrote this.
 * : "previous" and "at that time" is a bit confusing. Maybe ... had aired in that time slot?
 * Reworded
 * : MOS:SEAOFBLUE, suggest rewording
 * Reordered
 * Maybe wikilink "inspector general" to Office of Inspector General (United States)?
 * Done
 * : "in pattern" seems jargony too.
 * Reworded
 * Should Tribune Media and/or Tribune Broadcasting be linked?
 * Yes, done.
 * : why the scare quotes?
 * That was left from a prior version. Similar wording is in a lot of articles.
 * : Somewhat confusing sentence structure; is it neceessary to include the announcement date in addition the actual cancellation date?
 * No, and that's a good catch. That's a solid example of recentism.
 * : Long clause without a lot of prepositions to break it up. Might I suggest, a former NBC affiliate which had been converted into an independent station making hyperlocal news programs for specific areas of the Washington media market.
 * "which" → "whom"
 * Fixed
 * "in" → "on"
 * Fixed
 * : Aren't "pre-transition" and "post-transition" redundant here?
 * Yeah. Fixed.
 * "bureaux" > "bureaus" don't @ me

Thanks for giving this some fresh eyes, especially from outside the field. You probably have caught some whiffs of our...worst tendencies. (Go look at KOCO-TV and famine thine eyes.) Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Criterion 2d

 * is verbatim from the Post. It's arguably below the threshold of originality, might still be better to rephrase.
 * Reworded.

Criterion 4

 * Are there any relevant denials or different narratives by Hill or Brown that should be included?
 * They really didn't comment. There's also, honestly, room for an article about Nolanda Hill. Her relationship with Ron Brown was highly relevant, and she already had independent notability from her TV projects.