Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KCPQ/archive2

KCPQ

 * Nominator(s): Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For a television station that didn't broadcast in color at all for its first 19 years of broadcasting, channel 13 in western Washington sure has had a colorful history. A summary would run too long even for FAC, but it can be roughly divided into six periods: its foundation as KMO-TV, the short-lived television adjunct of a long-running Tacoma radio station; the J. Elroy McCaw and Blaidon years as KTVW, which saw it run second-fiddle among local independent stations and ended in bankruptcy and a year of silence; its operation by the Clover Park School District as an educational station, curtailed by changing financial circumstances and new local exigencies; return to commercial operation under Kelly Broadcasting, which included Fox affiliation (in 1986), relocation of facilities to Seattle (in 1997), and the beginning of a news department (in 1998) and left KCPQ the definitive fourth force in regional television; 20 years under Tribune Broadcasting, which built KCPQ up substantially in the area of news, and briefly Nexstar Media Group; and its operation as an owned-and-operated station of Fox after the network had coveted it since the 1990s. Along the way, readers will learn of its status as the "funny, fuzzy" station on Seattle's TV dial; the court-appointed trustee who saw enough during an episode of Batman; and Fox's almost-plan to abandon KCPQ and build a Fox-owned station out of the TV equivalent of sticks and stones.

My thanks go to for conducting a pre-FAC content review and providing the only comment on the first FAC last year,  for taking a photo for this page (an exhaustive search for libre-licensed images in 2021 came up quite empty-handed), and to  for conducting the GA review in 2021. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Please don't be scared by my lowercase-lacking titles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Support
Reiterating my support from last time. I've read through again and have just one suggestion: I would remove the "deceased" notes from the list of notable former staff -- this is not usual practice and I think adds an update burden that is unnecessary. That's a matter of opinion though and does not detract from my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a good thought. Another one of those things our pages do that they shouldn't. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
A school system owning a station? Now that is new- seems like an interesting article! It looks well-written already, my comments are just going to be on minor grammatical things (which, really, are on a take-them-or-leave-them basis)! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) , that's all I got, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - false title
 * - why are semicolons used in this list of things?
 * Changed.
 * - this is two dependent clauses stacked against each other; not against the rules, but it's rather odd to read (also, false title). Maybe just cut the 27 years detail, or rephrase
 * Flipped order
 * - false title
 * Leaving this one in because it is very hard to reword this well. I have removed most of the other false title issues except where they cause excessive commas.
 * - this needs a citation
 * Added to all of the inflation items.
 * - this too
 * - "the" president of the team
 * - wouldn't "with Douglas Edwards" be part of the italicized title?
 * - semicolon is unnecessary, a period would work just fine
 * Leaving this one be, I think there's a causality here that binds the sentences.
 * - IMO, better fits in her article, using it in this one seems out of focus
 * Fair point (though Pat's a guy)
 * My bad for assuming, thanks for the fix MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wl "the economic slowdown" to Recession of 1969–1970
 * Might just be me, but adding a wl to insolvent would be helpful
 * - citation needed
 * - sold KTVW to "the" Seattle-based...
 * - citation
 * - false title
 * - three ands, needs to be seperated with commas instead
 * Removed the "innovative" and the "even". This should not need a comma, even in its original form.
 * - first, false title; second, is he the president of Channel 13 or CBN?
 * Reworded. Wolfstone has already been introduced at this point, so I shouldn't even need a title.
 * - citation
 * - false title
 * - now, I didn't look at the source, but this seems like a very possible WP:OR issue; and, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic; I suggest cutting it and merging the rest with the following sentence
 * - aging is said twice here
 * - false title
 * - citation
 * - this too
 * - triple threat
 * - another
 * "8 p.m." should use an nbsp per MOS:TIME; same for 10 p.m. throughout
 * - false title
 * IMO, "The winds of change" isn't a very encyclopedic header; if all the other headers describe the ownership, call sign, or possible sales, I suggest this section header do the same
 * Changed
 * Having large sections that are multiple paragraphs long, followed by two sections only one paragraph odd, is odd. I think the last two sections can be merged under the header "Attempted sales" or similar
 * Combined with a different header than your suggested.
 * - false title; but, also, this detail is not needed, since his name is in the shows title
 * Just took a look at everything and did most of it. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - thanks for the quick responses! Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Heya, MyCatIsAChonk! Would you mind removing the tq template? Per the banner at WP:FAC, templates that alter fonts shouldn't be used here 'cuz they slow down load times. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Figured I'd do this by find-and-replace. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad- thanks for notifying me, and thanks Sammi for fixing it! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Source review by Vat
Putting this down, expect to have few issues. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Obvious low-hanging fruit: is citing the original NYP report necessary for reader understanding? To be clear, I'm reasonably convinced it is, just querying that because people will query less politely if a FAC passes without that being raised. (Prose comment: Tribune announced that it had been notified by Fox that its affiliation with KCPQ would be terminated is clause-stacking enough to be difficult to follow.)
 * Reworded that section.
 * Sources otherwise seem unproblematic, with a comprehensive array of local and national news sources as appropriate for the subject matter, all archived when appropriate, no serious formatting qualms.
 * Do refs 76, 124, and 154 (I think a handful of others too, but it's a fiddly text wall, you know) have any kind of byline or is it actually just 'no name given, not even an allusion to a staff writer'? I spotchecked a couple accessible sources that had no byline given and confirmed that they were, but it's easy to misformat a couple times in a huge list like this, so just querying.
 * Just checked all of those. No author.
 * Not a FAC comment: Impressed that there's a real person named By Fish.
 * I later discovered his name is Byron (more on the author). He is indeed "By Fish" on this column ("By BY FISH").

There are a ton of sources here, as should be expected from the nominator's track record for comprehensiveness. These are minor queries considering the absolute number. The NYP one is really the only one that needs attention, and I tend to think "that's a reasonable primary use backed up by a reliable secondary source confirming this is something that matters", but I'm mentioning it in case anyone who reads source reliability differently and hasn't noticed it wants to object. Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that citing the Post is justified here because its reporting was then cited by Deadline and Broadcasting & Cable and prompted Tribune to make public statements confirming the report. Also, its ownership—Murdoch—is relevant to the topic at hand. In addition, I have tweaked the clause-stacking issue. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass the sourcing here. I left this open for a few days to see if anyone would object or have other queries, and am happy with the general silence (I agree with Alien it'd be nice if we could-in-theory have more non-news sources, but for the individual station articles I get this is implausible, and you're certainly in-depth in your research). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Thebiguglyalien
General notes:
 * There are a lot of semicolons in this article. For me at least, it can be distracting if there are more than a few.
 * I tend to have longer sentence structure, so I think this is more of an agree to disagree case.
 * A few uses of "however" that can be removed. This word doesn't usually add any additional meaning to the sentence.
 * I left one in as having a bit of a causal link, but otherwise I removed them.
 * I've never heard of any requirement for citations when having a template calculate inflation, especially since the template documentation page is already cited.
 * Believe it or not, this was added in response to early
 * There are a few very short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs when possible.
 * Done, though I left one or two in because the topical break is noteworthy.
 * Fox is described as "coveting" three different times in the article, including one of the headings, causing it to stand out
 * I've reduced the use of "covets" except for the one header.
 * The sources seem generally reliable, but it's more difficult to say that they're high quality. A lot of them are newspapers (especially local newspapers) rather than higher quality academic or analytic sources. I don't know how avoidable this is for this topic, but it's something worth mentioning.
 * Book sources are few and far between in local broadcasting, and academic sources are even rarer. The general mix I have in my articles of this type consists of trade publications (Broadcasting/Broadcasting & Cable, TVNewsCheck, Variety) and local/regional papers. I'm a bit lucky that there are several relevant papers (two Seattle dailies and the Tacoma newspaper), regarded as newspapers of record in their area, which each had media columnists with regular articles on the matter.

Lead:
 * Is "signed on" a professional term for a radio station beginning operation?
 * Yes.
 * "the adjunct to Tacoma radio station KMO" – Does the average reader know what an adjunct station is?
 * Reworded.
 * "The buyer for channel 13 was J. Elroy McCaw" – To me, this feels backwards. I personally would write something like "Seattle broadcaster J. Elroy McCaw purchased channel 13 and changed the call letters..."
 * Reworded. I had reworded this earlier on a false title concern.
 * "as a competitive independent." – "independent" is better served as an adjective than as a noun. I suggest rewriting this sentence so it can end in "as a competitive independent station".
 * It's used a lot this way in the industry, but changed.

History:
 * "After 27 years of broadcasting dating to the launch of KMO radio and within a year of starting the TV station" – This is a little confusing. Could it be reworded or divided up a little bit for clarity?
 * "the station's lack of network affiliation and financial losses" – This could be read as "lack of financial losses".
 * Added an "its"
 * "warned that it appeared it would" – Reads awkwardly with these "it"s. Can "it appeared" be cut altogether?
 * Reworded
 * "Two months later" – Two months from when the FCC stepped in or two months from when the deal was scrapped? A simple date or month would be clearer.
 * Changed.
 * "with which several of its principals had connections" – Is there a clearer way to say this?
 * Reworded.
 * "McCaw tried to make several moves" – Unclear what "moves" means in this context
 * Reworded.
 * "the station increased its effective radiated power from the Ruston transmitter to 214,000 watts" – This doesn't tell the reader much. What was it before the increase?
 * 100,000. Added.
 * "McCaw was regarded as a penny-pincher" – I'm not sure about this wording, both because it seems informal and because it's a charged claim that should probably have a stronger source.
 * Added a little more here and reworded from "penny-pincher" to "frugal".
 * "fell into a tailspin after his death" – This feels like an idiom
 * Changed
 * "consummate the purchase" – I'd use a different word here
 * I would too, except that's the legal terminology used in this industry and by the FCC.
 * "to the tune of $3.5 million a year" – This feels informal
 * Reworded
 * "it counterprogrammed election returns" – 1980 United States elections might be a more appropriate link target.
 * Changed.
 * "expanded to include a strong offering of college sports (including Washington and Washington State football) and even tried its hand at a full local newscast" – Feels ever so slightly promotional
 * Reworded.
 * The "Fox covets Seattle" section frequently uses the "in month/year, this happened" format, which makes it read like a list.
 * Reworded.
 * "After lead FCC commissioner Ajit Pai publicly rejected the deal after" – Two "after"s in the same sentence
 * Reworded
 * "$6.9 billion in cash and debt" – I understand "in cash" to mean physical paper notes.
 * In this case, companies do pay for M&A with cash (often in actual bank accounts) sometimes. The source states, Nexstar will be paying $46.50 [a share] in cash and values the transaction at $6.4 billion, including the assumption of Tribune’s debt. The cash portion is valued at $4.1 billion.

Local programming:
 * "tried its hand at a regular local newscast" – Feels informal
 * Reworded.
 * "proposed to produce" – Awkward wording
 * Reworded.
 * "channel 13 "wasn't ready" for the venture" – According to whom? The quote suggests that this is someone's opinion.
 * Added.
 * Was there no non-news programming prior to 2008?
 * Specifically this section is for current programming, for the most part.

Ping me if you have any thoughts about any of these comments or feel that they've all been addressed. The nominator and reviewers here might also consider reviewing my open nomination for Barbara Bush. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this one. Addressed pretty much everything. I know this is the first thing of mine you've reviewed, and broadcasting topics can be kinda hard for reviewers, so thank you. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple more thoughts:
 * It now reads "who rebuilt the station as a more competitive independent station". I would swap out "the station" for "it".
 * I think a brief summary of past programming is necessary for comprehensiveness, if such information is available. Obviously it doesn't need to list every program, but a paragraph covering the general idea of what its non-news programming looked like and how it might have changed over time. Currently it's lopsided toward WP:RECENCY.
 * Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien First change is fine and done. Second isn't as convincing because there are already passages discussing the station's local programming in the history section. I did another exhaustive search to find more info on non-news local programming in the 1980–2008 period and came up fairly empty. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case I will support this as a featured article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)