Talk:WFTS-TV/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, best believe I will review one of the sources I love to cite and read! I want to get this done today, August 28 29, since there is a hurricane coming. If not, I will be up at night to review! Stay tuned! Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You know what time it is!

Lead

 * ... it was sold to Scripps the following year after the former's purchase of ABC. to ... it was sold to Scripps the following year after the former purchased ABC.?
 * If you wish to reduce wording, "at the same time" could be simply "simultaneously".

History

 * ... for a station which would have been called WTSS-TV, which was never built and deleted in 1971 Runs a bit awkward because of the "which"-es. I would replace the first "which" with "that".

As an ABC affiliate
 * ... though no reason was given by the network ... could be written as ... the network gave no reason ...

News operation

 * ... though the station was considering establishing one runs a bit awkward because of the passive voice and two -ing's here. Maybe ... though the station was contemplating the possibility of creating one?
 * In order to to to.
 * ... this marked the first time ever WFTS won at 5:00, 5:30, 6:00 and 11:00 p.m. "ever" might be redundant here, as the emphasis is placed on "first time".

Additional comments or concerns

 * "Family sold the station to Capital Cities Communications for more than $30 million.[15] The deal gave Capital Cities its first station in Florida and its first (and only) independent, as well as bringing the group to its then-maximum of seven stations.[15]" Because these statements are back-to-back the first instance of ref. 15 could be omitted.
 * Done
 * Ref. 21, was there a reason for "St. Petersburg, Florida" to be included in its location publication parameter as opposed to other references?
 * This used to be automatic for PressPass, but it since has broken. I've removed it across the board.
 * Spot check: For the sentence "That meant that the network would no longer have had a coverage gap between Tampa and Fort Myers, ..." I cannot verify the reach to Ft. Myers part in the source attached here. Is there another newspaper article that explains channel 40's reach? The part I read, it only covered Sarasota (its base) and Manatee, but not Lee County where that city is located. Maybe it is in the source in the following sentence?
 * Reworded heavily with new refs. It no longer makes this claim. It does explain why ABC needed WWSB with WTSP but not WFTS though.
 * I forget if there was an explanation for this in a past review, ref. 33 might need a Retrieval date.
 * Just was omitted. Fixed.
 * Spot check: I am not sure if this source explains the sentence: "The primary reason was that the original channel 28 studios at I-4 and Columbus Drive were simply not large enough; the Himes Avenue facility project was only a plan when the switch was announced". There might be a missing source to match, but this article states channel 28's move to the Tampa facility along Himes (not mentioning Columbus) will not be affected by the loss of NFL programming.
 * Reworded here.
 * For the following sentence mentioning "28 Tampa Bay News", I know from the latter sources that is what it is titled, but in the source cited it does not explicitly state such. I would add the source from the next sentence after this one to this sentence to better aid readers in correlating these two references (that was a sentence full from me).
 * Added a new ref here.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I am gonna do a once over again. If anything is further, I will ping shortly. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 01:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well written + verifiability
The article is well written, with no grammar or sentence structure issues. The article follows the general manual of style. The article cites a variety of reliable sources within its table of contents, and the reference layout is proper. The article has some spot checks to check out above, but no major issues. Earwig turned out good, no outstanding issues regarding plagiarism, copyright, or close paraphrasing. Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 23:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Broadness + focus + neutral
The article is broad in scope of the subject, with a fair and focused perspective on the overall station. The article is written in a neutral manner, giving fair points to all parties. Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Images + stability
The article's logo image is relevant to the article's content. The paperwork is properly filed. The article is stable, with no active or ongoing edit conflicts. As a side note, the next time I am around Ray Jay I can try to get another photo for this article if needed. Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please! That would be extremely helpful. First round of changes done; the lead was rewritten to be a bit more size-appropriate. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All done with the review. Only some minor problems to take a look at further. I will put that on my list the next time I am over there (it might not be high quality, but a quality nonetheless)! :D Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)