Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KNXV-TV/archive1

KNXV-TV

 * Nominator(s): Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Pound-for-pound, the most interesting TV station in Phoenix is probably the one with an N for "News" in its call sign yet which mocked local newscasts with the "Bluebird of Happinews" in its early years. After years of funding-related delays, KNXV turned up in 1979 as the first new English-language TV station in Phoenix in 12 years. It got built mostly as a conduit for ON TV programming (and is part of the ON TV Good Topic), but cable became widespread enough by 1983 that it was one of the first markets where the company withdrew. After being sold to Scripps-Howard Broadcasting and affiliating with Fox in 1986, KNXV found its stride and eclipsed heritage KPHO-TV, a station that failed to get with the times, as the leading independent station in the market. Plans for a newscast became reality in 1994—in time to be scrambled by a huge affiliation realignment which sent ABC to 15. In spite of substantial early promise and a style distinguishing it from its four competitors, News 15 scuffled hard after changes in management and talent. More recently, the station has expanded its news output and improved its quality, as demonstrated by two Peabody Awards in consecutive years. Thank you to (GA reviewer in March 2022) and Valley of the Sun Retail for providing the studio image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:KNXV-TV_studios_2023.jpg is lacking evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nikkimaria A user put that image (and some others I want to use in articles) up in a Discord server. I asked him to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 for Wikipedia purposes; he agreed and, on the advice of User:Snowmanonahoe in WP:DISCORD, edited the messages to add "Images released under CC-BY-SA 4.0". He did not want to create an account and wanted me to upload the image. Is there additional documentation, short of a VRT ticket, that would help? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the image available elsewhere online? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria It is not. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * K. To my knowledge VRT doesn't generally accept secondhand permissions, particularly if we can't verify that that user owns the photo copyright, so we might be stuck here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria The user in question *did* take the photo—that I know. Do you think I need to have him go through the VRT process? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would probably be the best option. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of overkill, especially because the Discord server is public (I could link an invite if you wanted and then point you to the message in question), but... I'm working on it. It may not happen until tonight because the creator I think works during the day. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to believe the claim is false. Sammi Brie could've just uploaded the photos as own work. This is the same thing. A VRT ticket doesn't make any sense here because this person has no verifiable online contact information. The ticket would be verifying the identity of a random guy whom we don't even know is the actual photographer because his photos are not publicly available. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately, if we go by that logic we're back to being stuck. (And uploading stuff as own work which is not own work is not a good workaround for that). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to convey by that point is that when someone makes a claim of own work, it is no less dubious than the claim Sammi Brie is making--that she was given permission to upload an otherwise unpublished work by a personal friend. The copyright status of the photo is not 'stuck' anywhere, because there is nowhere Sammi Brie could've gotten the photo besides the photographer, because the photo is not published. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting Sammi's good faith here, but as far as I'm aware every time this situation has come up on Commons, the response has always been to send them through VRT, just because having a copy of a photo is not evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think there is significant doubt of the file's free status, you can open a DR. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Got him to generate a release for that image. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

voorts
Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made some minor edits throughout. Feel free to discuss them here.
 * Most of the sourcing in the article is to newspapers. Has anyone written a reliable history of the station or broadcasting in Phoenix that can be cited to?
 * I don't see a good history of broadcasting book for Phoenix or Arizona. If it existed and was from 2000 or earlier, I think it would cover KNXV on a cursory level due to its relative age (even moreso given it has only been a news-producing station/network affiliate for 30 years). There is apparently an Images of America book, but it would be mostly photos. I have been lucky with some markets (Milwaukee) and states, but I have also seen state books (Kentucky) where the material was already heavily sourced from newspapers. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This needs a citation.
 * Reworded (this was an intro to the next sentence).
 * Clarify whether this was pursuant to the contract or an FCC requirement.
 * Done.
 * This is an incomplete sentence.
 * Missing period. Fixed.
 * What is an "also-ran"?
 * also-ran
 * Ref 34 appears to be a primary source and also links to the docket, not the actual PDF. Is there a secondary source that discusses those points?
 * I can't link to a single PDF because of the way the FCC handled the pagination and splitting of documents in some of these legacy imports. Everything is strewn across several PDFs. I first heard about this from an article I ran across years ago in the Phoenix Gazette, which reported on Miller's claims, but the Gazette is not in Newspapers.com (it's my most-wanted publication to be digitized). I can only get basic bibliographical information for it. The only other place I can see this being reported is in the Sarasota area because it turned up in the WWSB filing, but my search for "Scripps has a gun" only turned up an open letter from WWSB.
 * Regarding the Phoenix Gazette article, perhaps you ask someone to get it for you via microfilm. Additionally, I don't think we ought to be sourcing to a declaration of someone filed in an agency proceeding, unless it's properly attributed. Even then, it's a primary source document that wasn't necessarily fact-checked, so inclusion of too much information from it is probably undue.
 * I have added a citation to the article that I know (at least I can search for it) reprinted the "Scripps has a gun" remark, as well as more in-text attribution. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added "According to Miller" to the beginning of the paragraph to clarify that everything in that paragraph is from Miller's declaration. Do we have evidence other than that declaration that Iger, Murphy, etc. said the things that Miller attributed to them? Did they confirm those quotes anywhere? Did they deny them? Also, I think you need to clarify who Miller is. In terms of the linking issue, any way you can download all the PDFs with the declaration, combine them into one PDF, and upload it somewhere so that readers can access the entire declaration? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's PD and uploadable to Commons,, but I do have a PDF of just the Miller section. Not sure if I could upload it anywhere though because WP:ELNEVER. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still pretty unsure whether this paragraph should remain in. For FA, we need high quality sourcing. Relying on a declaration filed in an agency proceeding (I assume by someone with a vested interest, but correct me if I'm wrong) and a newspaper story quoting from that declaration that you currently don't have access to doesn't pass that bar. I could maybe live with one or two sentences instead of a full paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Voorts That's fair. I've left in a sentence that I think sums up the key details in that piece. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is depressing.
 * What is a "time brokerage agreement"?
 * Wikilinked. An agreement under which one company purchases airtime from a broadcast station to program on its own. (If that sounds like half-ownership...that's kind of the problem for Nexstar.)
 * What was the style before and why did Scripps tone it down? That also appears to contradict the next sentence, which states . That doesn't seem particularly toned down.
 * We can't really say because we never got to see News 15 in its original form. They seem to have been intending a very special-effects-heavy newscast to appeal to a young audience when they were still Fox. They had to modify their plans quite a bit once they realized they were going to be an ABC affiliate. I've seen some of KNXV's early newscasts, and they did not change much.
 * This is also depressing.
 * Replied. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from ZKang123
This looks well-written on first glance. Let me see through any nitpicks.
 * Curious, what does KNXV stand for? Never mind, later explained in history.
 * "In February 1975, pioneering UHF broadcaster Edwin Cooperstein, who had started New Jersey's WNJU-TV in the 1960s before moving to Phoenix, announced that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had granted a construction permit to his company, New Television Corp., to build a television station in Phoenix on UHF channel 15."
 * I find this sentence a bit long. I understand it's also to add more context of who Edwin Cooperstein and how he is a "pioneering UHF broadcaster", but I felt the "who had..." clause could be a footnote or something to focus more on him building a television station, which I find more relevant to the article. Maybe consider preparing a redlink for Edwin Cooperstein.
 * "Plans were soon delayed by the inability to secure financing" – "Plans were soon delayed due to the inability to secure financing"
 * " the station still had not been built." – "the station was still unbuilt."
 * "funding problems continued to stand in the way of getting KNXV-TV on the air, leading" – I find this clause unnecessary given it's clear there's still funding issues before. Might shorten the sentence to: "In 1977, Cooperstein and his investors sold a majority of New Television Corp..."
 * No wikilink for Arlington Corporation?
 * Not enough SIGCOV on its own. It only owned four stations. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "In late 1978, firm plans were made for a 1979 launch of the station." – I think it could be rewritten as "In late 1978, the station was planned to launch in the following year."
 * "as a commercial independent, airing first-run and off-network syndicated shows and children's programs." – I did a little trip reading this (thinking it's some run-on) before understanding "independent" as a noun.
 * The fact independent station wasn't linked here at its first mention contributes to this. "Independent" as a noun is common in articles on this, but never on first mention!
 * "but signs of trouble for the business were emerging rapidly." – this clause by its own here isn't clear in stating what signs of trouble there were for the company.
 * ";[15] however," – Not necessary to have a semicolon here given "however" is a connector signpost for a contrasting statement. Plus, the next statement can stand as its own sentence.
 * "in part because" – "partly because"
 * "dipped below 25,000, a drop of" – could use an en dash or emdash here, whichever you prefer
 * "and those syndicated shows" – remove "those"
 * ", the established independent in Phoenix," – I understand the need for clarity for what KPHO-TV is but I think the wikilink to the article would give context. Otherwise, you can do a footnote.
 * Disagree. A modern reader might not realize KPHO-TV was an indie (Big Realignment '94 made them the CBS affiliate). This clause establishes "OK, 15 was competing with 5".
 * ", potential buyers appeared for channel 15" – something about "appeared" don't seem encyclopedic to me.
 * Might also add modern value dollars for $22 million and $30 million
 * "and accepted a" – "but accepted a". I think "but" is more suitable
 * ", with the sale being finalized in 1985" – "The sale was finalized..."
 * "One new program on channel 15 in its first months with Scripps had much to do with its new owner." – something about this statement doesn't seem encyclopedic. I understand it is to tie the relationship of the new programme. Maybe like "is related to its new owner?"
 * " purchase more recent sitcoms" – I think at this time they aren't as "recent". Maybe like "purchase sitcoms that were new at the time?" Might suggest also adding which sitcoms were purchased as examples.
 * Couldn't substantiate this much, unfortunately.
 * For this chunk: "After KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate with the fledgling Fox network, it approached KNXV. Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986; as Fox's first and only program was The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers, KNXV remained essentially independent.", maybe I would rephrase to:
 * "The expanding Fox network approached KNXV after KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate, and Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986. As Fox' first and only..."
 * "(channel 10, which New World was in the process of acquiring from Citicasters)" – Suggest putting as a footnote instead.
 * Rewritten a bit but not to a footnote.
 * "Just as importantly, however," – this part sounds like fluff. Remove this.
 * "ABC affiliates, WXYZ-TV and WEWS-TV, in these markets" – I recommend the use of dashes here.
 * "or else it would affiliate with CBS in those markets." – "otherwise it would affiliate with CBS"
 * "This was not a demand to which ABC was initially amenable." – "ABC was not initially amenable to this demand."
 * "For this reason" – "Hence"
 * "wanted to keep a station that had risen from one of ABC's weakest affiliates to one of its strongest." – something about this sentence is a bit clunky.
 * "swelled to 85" – "expanded to 85"
 * No issues for the remainder of the history section
 * "However, after Sullivan left the station in 1996, Michael Kronley was installed as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV: the investigative reports were discontinued, replaced by more live shots, and the station acquired a helicopter." – Suggest rewording to: "Sullivan left the station in 1996, and under Michael Kronley as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV, the investigative reports were discontinued and replaced by more live shots, with the acquisition of a helicopter."
 * Reflowed.

The rest of the article seems fine. That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed most issues. One or two items I changed in a different manner, and another one or two I did not do for specific reasons. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 08:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything else seems to be in order. Support. --ZKang123 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Non-expert prose review:


 * "KNXV-TV, standing for "Newswatch 15" (the "XV" stood for 15 in Roman numerals)." If XV is for 15, how does KN represent "Newswatch"? Can this be explained in the article either in the prose or as a note?
 * Just the N. The K was going to be there regardless because all call signs for broadcast stations in the western US start with K (cf Call signs in the United States). This is likely too much of a digression to include in prose.
 * "As a result, in 1977, Cooperstein" Consider removing "as a result" as I don't think it is necessary.
 * "In late 1978, firm plans were made to launch" Delete firm, not necessary.
 * "KNXV-TV signed on September 9, 1979," I assume "signed" means to begin broadcasting? If so, I would wikilink the term or say "KNXV-TV began broadcasting on September 9, 1979"
 * "One of the station's most memorable early promotions" delete most memorable: it is a quantitative, opinionated statement that doesn't need to be in wikivoice, and also isn't necessary
 * "One of the station's most memorable" After some thinking, consider removing this whole sentence as the promotion isn't mentioned again and this might be in the category of "trivia".
 * I think there's some irony here. The N in the call sign stood for News. They mocked news...and a decade later got news.
 * "ON TV took the station to court over its refusal" -> "ON TV sued the station over its refusal" to reduce the word count
 * "the television station's revenue." -> Remove television, as I don't think it's necessary?
 * "KSHB-TV general manager, had convinced Muscare to work in Phoenix and coaxed Muscare out of retirement" -> "KSHB-TV general manager, coaxed Muscare out of retirement and work in Phoenix"
 * "—who later worked in Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Charlotte—" I don't think this is necessary and can be removed.
 * "KNXV was already in the process of building a local news" delete already as redundant.
 * "ABC affiliate (1995–present)" is quite long. Is there a way to split this with two or three level-3 headings?
 * " in the Phoenix metro area.[59][58] " While not necessary, consider putting these refs in order as the other refs in the article are organised this way.
 * "However, after Sullivan left the station in 1996," Delete this "However", it is not necessary
 * "KNXV and KPHO then both adopted the slogan" delete then
 * "the lowest rating in the history of the report, an "F", for its" Not sure if its necessary to have "an F" here as it is already described as the lowest rating.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most changes made,, but I disagree with a handful of suggestions. I did add some material around the "F" rating as well as section headers. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Comments above were addressed. I can see the point about the changes not made, so I won't object. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Are Arizona Republic and The Arizona Republic two different newspapers? Ditto for Phoenix Gazzette and The Phoenix Gazzette. What is #25? #60 seems to be missing some information. #76 should say what it is. What makes tvnewscheck.com, broadcastbeat.com and Warren Communication News a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "The" issues for the Republic and Gazette. Marking down here: the Republic ceased printing "The" in its name with the March 30, 2014, issue, though internal usage was inconsistent for years thereafter, and it may now merit an article name change. (Not entirely uncommon; this is an issue with publications like the Orlando Sentinel.)
 * #25 is a season preview. Broadcasting used to print every year previews of the television and radio rights situations for MLB, NFL, and NBA teams. A shadow library mirrors nearly every issue of Broadcasting, but I do not add new links to it except to help reviewers verify sourcing. Newspapers.com has some frustrating month gaps for the Republic in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the rightsholder change falls into one of them.
 * #60 has a metadata issue in the source that a citoid widget probably carried over. The author is listed as an Alex with a Twitter of "@alexcervantes" (in the source). But the actual user with that account is a Mexican economist. Removed any name as they are not listed in plain text on the page.
 * #76 has had information added to it.
 * TVNewsCheck is a reputable site for coverage of the local TV industry. My comments on this site can be found in Talk:KLKN/GA1. I do not see the other two sources here, (though Warren Publishing would be reliable in any event).  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I can't find broadcastbeat either. So I guess it's moot now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Turns out I also linked the wrong Warren Publishing, but Warren was a reliable shop with the Factbook and several publications that do not survive in easily researchable form. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo, is this one good to go? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.
 * "affiliated with ABC." Acronyms should be given in full at first mention, in both the lead and the main article.
 * I tend to disagree in the case of ABC in articles that are clearly about American TV (e.g. Talk:Welcome to the Neighborhood (TV series)/GA1). Even MOS:ACRO1STUSE notes that exceptions are "something most commonly known by its acronym".
 * Then ABC should be linked on first mention in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild Done. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "ON TV folded in 1983", "folded" seems a little unencyclopedic. And may not always be understood outside North America.
 * The lead seems very detailed, perhaps over details, regarding events to 1995, then switches to summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gave the lead a bit of balance. We have a problem in our field of short/bad leads in unimproved articles. I made two of the other three changes. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 19:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. It is now too long, has too many paragraphs and needs a copy edit. :-) I have had a go here. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've given it a good go, and I'm fine with it (I added it with a few extra links I felt were missing), but I note that its arrangement is a little unusual for our topic area. Let's see how it goes, @Gog the Mild. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)