Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paramount Television Network/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:25, 24 April 2010 [1].

---

Paramount Television Network

Paramount Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Paramount Television Network/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Paramount Television Network/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been through GA review and peer review and meets the featured article criteria. This article has caught on with bloggers who have never heard of the topic, and who write their own summaries based on this article (for example here, here, and here), and one reader left a kind message on my talk page here concerning this article.

Particular attention has been made to include contemporary sources, since most (actually, nearly all) modern-day reference works do not mention the subject of this article. When I began this article in 2007, the subject had only three valid Google hits. Luckily, that has changed.

I'm aware that the subject is on an obscure, unpopular topic; finding a GA reviewer took several months, and the article also ended up on the Peer Review backlog. So if the article fails FAC due to lack of support, but the content is improved, that's ok. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Commments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I'm not new to FAC, so I checked them myself, too. :) You've changed some of the dashes in citations, but I rather painstakingly copied and pasted those dashes in from the original sources. For example, in reference #12, Para's KTLA Bows Jan. 22; Hope Emcee – Star-Studded Cast Inked". Billboard: 10. 1947-01-18, the punctuation in the citation's title was a hyphen (-), not an endash (–). It looks as though that is correct according to Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE ("[the] practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal. Allowable typographical alterations include [...] styling of dashes"), but I worry that a reader who types the endash in his or her browser's "find text" box to locate the title of an article will not find the citation. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but issues may come up after you check, or you may have forgotten—it happens, and another check can't do harm. Yes, the edits I made conform to MOS, but may cause problems for the reason you mentioned. I don't care particularly much about this specific issue, but FAs should conform to all aspects of the MOS. Ucucha 02:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward

• General
  • "The network signed affiliation agreements with more than 50 television stations in 1950" - how about the exact number here, rather than "more than fifty". I also read lower in the article where they peaked with over 100 affiliates. Perhaps the peak number should also be mentioned in the lead?

White's 1992 book says there were more than 50 affiliates during the peak years. White's 1992 paper states there were more than 40 at the peak. No other author mentions the peak number of affiliates, and in fact the PTN is relegated to a single paragraph in even the most thorough books (Lev's, for example). Although the table lists more than 100 affiliates, many stations only aired one program, and no PTN series lasted eight years.

• • "Filming of programs took place at the Paramount station KTLA in Los Angeles" - missing "the", unless Paramount Station was the name of the building. In which case both should be capitalized.

Fixed, thanks.

• • "Other television stations across the United States received Paramount programs via kinescope for airing", maybe "kinescope film" or "kinescope recording". It won't be obvious to most readers what a kinescope is, best to describe it.

Adjusted, thanks.

• • "Station managers at WBKB-TV in Chicago also had plans to distribute kinescoped programs", I am a little confused about that statement. Did the Chicago station intend to produce its own programs and sell them independently of the LA station, or were they intending to resell the programs recorded by the LA station?

They intended to film and distribute their own PTN programs. I've adjusted.

• • "the sale ended Paramount's first, early ventures into network television." - "first, early" seems redundant in this setting.

Thanks. I've reduced the redundancy by removing "early".

• • The article lists the executives and key people of the company in the infobox at the lead, but doesn't give them any mention in the article, except in passing and by title rather than name. It could be useful to add a paragraph talking about them and their role in the company. I understand sources may not give expansive information on them, but anything about them would really be useful.

This is a good suggestion, and I'm able to write a bit on KTLA president Paul Raibourn and vice president Klaus Landsberg, but it might be horribly negative. Bergmann's book, Kisselof's book, Goldenson's book, and White's book and papers discuss them, but no book source appears to paint them in any sort of a positive light. "Bully", "dickhead", "coldest man I ever met", "sabotage", "Nazi", "stole my network", "gave me cancer", etc. I'd like to keep this as NPOV as possible, so I avoided any mention of Raibourn's or Landsberg's professional doings or personalities. They appear to have been much hated by staff at DuMont, ABC, and KTLA. I can write something, if needed.

I've written a couple of paragraphs, sourced to ABC's Goldenson and Billboard.

• Citations needed
  • "The following year, Paramount purchased a 40% interest in DuMont Laboratories, a pioneer in early television technology founded by Dr. Allen B. DuMont."

With a slight adjustment, the sentence is cited to Hess. (It could have been cited to White, Bergmann, Auter, Kisselof, or several others, but a cite to Hess was already in place there anyway).

• • "The popularity of KTLA's local programs opened up the possibility that they would become national hits if released to other stations across the country."

This is never explicitly stated anywhere; it was my attempt to smooth the prose by bridging the gap between KTLA's early local programming and its national aspirations which resulted in the 1948 launch. I can remove it, but then there will be a slight disjoint between the local section and the attempted national distribution. Advice appreciated.

• • "Meanwhile, CBS, ABC and NBC had each acquired the maximum of five stations by the mid-1950s."

Cited.

• • "Author Timothy White has called Paramount's efforts to launch its own television service, which directly competed with the DuMont Television Network, an unwise decision;", this quote needs a citation following it.

The citation at the end of the paragraph covers the entire paragraph. I can add the same citation again, but have been through FAC before and have been told before not to duplicate citations in the same paragraph.

• • "The Spade Cooley Show, a variety program hosted by Spade Cooley and featuring Dick Lane, Anita Aros, Phil Gray, and Kay Cee Jones"

Cited. This was actually one of the five series that White specifically mentioned in his 1992 paper (all the rest were more difficult to find), so I don't know why it wasn't cited before...

• • "Additionally, various press releases indicated that other KTLA series would be offered on the network."

I had actually cited each press release immediately following the title of the series which was planned for national distribution, but have added them after this sentence as well.

• • "There is no indication, however, that the following series aired outside of Los Angeles"

I can't provide a citation for a lack of indication. I can strike the sentence, but then readers will be falsely informed that those four programs aired on the network. The only sources for these programs are press releases which indicate that they would be seen on the network "soon".

• • "Leo Resnick, hearing examiner for the Commission, concluded that Paramount did not control DuMont; this ruling would have allowed both Paramount and DuMont to expand to five stations each, but the FCC rejected this portion of Resnick's findings."

Again, the citation is at the end of the paragraph, as the source supports all the material in the paragraph.

• • "...the sale ended Paramount's first, early ventures into network television."

Cited.

• • "This plan was aborted when Paramount made the decision to transform Phase II into Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

Cited.

• Images
  • Note: File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg is a non-free image, but has an acceptable fair use rationale
  • File:Paramount Television Network.png has no source, date, author, etc, only a description.

I am the author, and I've added the author, date created, and the software used to create the image.

• References
  • Reference 24 needs a "pp." before the page number
  • Same for ref 121, 142, 124, 151, 153, 179, 201 189

The citation template used for these references suppresses the "pp." from showing.

I think on those you can manually insert a "p" or "pp" into the parameter so it would look like "pages=pp 2". —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the tip. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Reference 18 needs an access date
  • Same for ref 67
  • In the further reading section, the page number of the book should be "pp" rather than "p"

Fixed.

• • Query: The article uses "pp" throughout, but generally isn't that reserved for when you site multiple pages, and "p" when siting an individual page? Either way, so long as it is consistent I think its ok.

I'm just using citation templates.

• Sources check out.
• Alt text present
• Prose is excellent

This is a very nice article and an interesting topic. It is lacking in details in some areas, but I understand that the availability of published information equally lacking. Most of my comments are nitpicks, and once addressed I'd be glad to support this article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles, for reading the article and for your thorough review. I've struck out some items and am working on your other observations. If I've struck something out which you feel has not been addressed, please feel free to unstrike it. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You've addressed them all to my own satisfaction. One new one though from your additions:

• "According to Leonard Goldenson, president of ABC during this era, Raibourn "constantly nitpicked and needled [Allen DuMont] over the smallest expenditures. DuMont came to the point where, psychologically, he thought he couldn't do anything without Raibourn's approval."" - is an uncited quote, I suspect though its from the ref at the end of the paragraph, but don't have the book to check myself.

It's cited at the end of the paragraph, but as it is a direct quote, I've gone ahead and dupe cited it. Someone else will have to ding me for the duplicated citation... if another reviewer happens along. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. This article meets all the FA criteria. Another quality article for the encyclopedia, Good work! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review and the support, Charles. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Per WP:ASL, scrolling lists of citations, like the one that is used here, should be avoided because of several accessibility problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I actually got the idea and code for the reference scrollbar from a Featured Article; it was an attempt to reduce the size of the large reference section. I've removed it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

images File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg non-existent FU rationale! Fasach Nua (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The image has always been correctly licensed, with a section beginning with "Non-free media use rationale for Paramount Television Network". Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, and I've reworded the FUR slightly. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Three weeks, no consensus to promote, unfortunately FAC is stalled and backlogged. Please bring this back in a week, perhaps placing a neutral message on WikiProject pages to encourage review. Sorry, but with FAC lacking reviewers, my hands are tied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let me know when you resubmit for a review. I'd be glad to review the article again for you. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.