Talk:WPST-TV

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

Moved to mainspace by Nathan Obral (talk) and Sammi Brie (talk). Nominated by Sammi Brie (talk) at 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting article. This is ready. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie: I wasn't able to find in the article where it says Baker ordered the closure of the station, as stated in the hook. Can you quote the text from the article? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: You're reading the hook wrong. They were ordered off the air by the FCC; the marquee was lit on Baker's orders. Look for the paragraph starting Despite the station ceasing operations... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the hook is saying that the owner is closing the lit marquee? My interpretation after reading the hook is that it is stating that the owner ordered the closure of the TV station. I wonder if I would be the only one that would read this hook in this way. Suggesting some ALTs below:
@Sammi Brie: Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: Of those two, I'd strongly support ALT0b over a. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readding tick, strong preference for ALT0b. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WPST-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Review

  • I'll take this one on Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copvio check

  • Earwig doesn't give anything to worry about but of course it can't work on clippings so I'll keep my eyes peeled

Prose

  • lead - i'll come back to this last
  • if you start reading the artcile by ignoring the lead, then it launches right in on "License fight" - is it a fight? or is it a process or a simple application? also perhaps an introductory sentence could be added tio set the context
    • The FCC took applications for the same station/channel and put them against each other in a comparative hearing. I do think "license fight" is better used later on though. Comparative hearings result in construction permits, which are replaced with licenses once the station gets on air.
  • "while WGBS was owned by Miami Beach–based Storer Broadcasting, the latter's bid also included construction of a" - i'd suggest a semi-colon so "while WGBS was owned by Miami Beach–based Storer Broadcasting; the latter's bid also included construction of a"
    • That sentence needed splitting outright.
  • Storer's re-entry turned the application process into a five-way battle as North Dade Video, Inc., submitted an application.[14] so I'd suggest "Storer's re-entry turned the application process into a five-way battle as North Dade Video, Inc., had also submitted an application.[14]"
    • Changed
  • "behind the glitter and glamor of South Florida lies moral decay, delinquency and graft" in a direct quote the link really needs to be a clear illustration, so graft going to Graft (politics) works byt deliquency going to Felony, where the word is not even mentioned, is not clear enough
    • Removed that link
  • "Storer Broadcasting president George B. Storer re-emerged in the channel 10 fight." - is it a fight at this point? or was WKAT awarded the license, case closed?
    • This is a protest against the initial decision.
  • "WGBS-TV was also in danger of losing their NBC-TV affiliation" - "its NBC-TV affiliation"?
    • Changed
  • "which recently won a recommendation" suggest "which had recently won a recommendation"
    • Changed
  • "Both were turned down by the appeals court on March 9, 1956, allowing for WCKT to be built" - it's not clear to me why if the appeals failed WCKT can be built, since its the first mention of WCKT
    • WCKT is channel 7 in this case.
  • "As expected, WCKT debuted that July as an NBC affiliate, forcing WGBS-TV to operate as an independent with a significantly downscaled lineup[36] " - as expected by who? why would this force WGBS-TV to operate as an independent?
    • Because WGBS-TV's only network affiliation was NBC. Also note the line earlier: Trammell, a former NBC executive, announced the network would join their station when it launched. Biscayne announced they were going to be NBC. WITV had ABC. WTVJ had CBS. There was nowhere for WGBS-TV to go.
  • "the FCC was set to award the license at an upcoming February 6 meeting, but Broadcasting reported a decision already had been written favoring Public Service Television/NAL" - this is quite bizarre to me that the FCC would award to license to someone else (and indeed the crux of the tale so far) is there more that can be said on this?
    • The commission itself didn't have to abide by the initial decision of the examiner! KXTV (which I wrote) is another example where the initial decision was later overturned and another applicant got the channel. In that case, after the initial decision, the competing applicant appealed to the full FCC and argued its decision was inconsistent with policies on media ownership.
  • further on that point, the first paragraph on "construction" is more about the saga
  • "that ultimately doomed WPST-TV." suggest "who ultimately doomed WPST-TV."
    • Changed
  • " also admitted in testimony to have engaged in wire-pulling to " - the wire-pulling link goes to marionette which i don't think is helpful
  • "Oregon Sen. Wayne Morse called for President Eisenhower to call for Mack's resignation as a result of Whiteside's testimony, " - two "call"s suggest changing one
    • Changed
  • "it worried Pan Am would use the station to promote itself " suggest "it was worried Pan Am would use the station to promote itself "
    • Changed
  • stopping here for now because of a slight concern over spotchecks - went as far as "The FCC's verdict"

Prose2

  • "Despite the station ceasing operations, the "WPST Television Channel 10" marquee outside the former studios continued to be turned on every night" - so the lights were being turned on? can you add that in
    • Yes, it's a big lit sign. You can see it here.
  • " Unlike WPST-TV, after WCKT's license was revoked with Sunbeam Television receiving short-term operating authority, Biscayne Television sold the previous WCKT's assets to Sunbeam,[182] which launched their iteration of WCKT on December 19, 1962, retaining all staff." - not sure what "Unlike WPST-TV," means here, can you spell that out
    • WPST's Baker refused to sell anything to the incoming WLBW-TV. WCKT Mk I sold its assets to WCKT Mk II.
  • The permanent license was again shrouded by accusations of favoritism at the FCC" - (just a comment- oioi more favouritism!)
  • "Richard A. Mack was found dead " - no cause of death? (comment - and how sad, so many deaths)
    • I have added a reference and some updated information on this one.

Spotchecks

On this version:

  • 21 The majority of the attention, however, focused on George T. Baker. Baker testified that he viewed the channel 10 application as a "force for good" to improve civic engagement, citing the Kefauver Special Committee on organized crime as evidence that "behind the glitter and glamor of South Florida lies moral decay, delinquency and graft—the three forces that are dry-rotting the fiber of the community." - "force for good" - is this a quote from him or from the newspaper headline? if the latter, maybe better to rephrase. second quote is good. why say "however" - seems unnecessary and unencyclopedic. further i wouldn't say "majority of the attention," is backed by the source
    • Fixed
  • 42 "should be allowed to own a television station, which the commission rejected as committing "legal error in considering it"" - source says "FCC has told Sen. A. S. Mike Mon - roney (D- Okla.) the Commission feels it would be committing "legal error" if it con- sidered the senator's request that the FCC defer action in the Miami ch. 10 case" - so i think your quote is a bit off and needs modifying
    • You missed the third paragraph. The FCC, in a reply dated Jan. 11 and revealed Wednesday, said that in an adjudicatory proceeding such as the Miami ch. 10 case, the Communications Act and Administrative Procedure Act require that decisions be based only on matters of record. It added: "Your letter, of course, is not of record in the proceeding. Accordingly the Commission feels it would commit legal error in considering it."
  • 54 In an interview with the Miami Herald, Baker reiterated his aspirations to use WPST-TV as a tool to improve coverage of community events and government functions, and favored the station delivering on-air editorials, saying, "I think our station has the right to say what it thinks on community issues." - fine
  • as a sidenote, the article next to this one in the clipping details what being an ABC affiliate was in terms of TV shows, i think that would be helpful to add to the article
  • 80 "With the channel 10 scandal in public view, the FCC selected retired Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice Horace Stern to preside over a rehearing for the WPST-TV license, the first time an examiner outside of the commission's staff had ever been appointed" - fine
  • 96 "A cross-examination of George T. Baker resulted in Baker assailing Sen. Smathers for lying to the House Subcommittee to "put out a big story", while Katzentine's attorney read from Smathers' statement describing Baker as "over-bearing and abusive" during a visit to his office. Baker also denied knowledge of Whiteside influencing Mack but said, "I'm grateful for what he did if he did it... but he certainly didn't do it at our discretion." - this is fine except for the last quote getting slightly mangled, which is a serious issue. the quote is actually "I'm grateful for what he did if he did it [..]] but he certainly didn't do it at our direction." - direction not discretion. it's important to get a direct quote correct, so i'll need to spotcheck some more
    • Repaired
  • 111 p3 " Television Digest criticized the trial for having not revealed any new information other than what had already been established, noting that its "cast of characters was ready for full rerun"[111] - fine
  • 110 p7 "while calling the testimony "lumbering" and "dull", declaring "...the end of the marathon construction job was nowhere near in sight".[110]" - does it call the testimony lumbering and dull? dull yes but lumbering not. the long quote is fine. also the link here could be better, like for 111 which goes to the exact page
    • It says that the trial "lumbered"
  • 119 "while Whiteside's attorney hailed the holdout juror, 40-year-old government engineer John A. Sakaley, as a "man of courage"" - damn again the direct quote is a bit off ... the source says "he is a man of great courage and stature" - that needs fixing
    • Another case where Nathan quoted the newspaper headline (like 21)
  • 127 "Mack's physical and mental health, however, deteriorated to where he was admitted to the Jackson Memorial Psychiatric Institute under court order on January 28, 1960, for what doctors called his "lacking in competence and capacity to conduct his personal or other affairs and to exercise judgement" made worse by alcoholism." - source says Jackson Memorial Hospital but article says Jackson Memorial Psychiatric Institute, direct quote is again off, in source it is "lacking in competancy [sic] and capacity to conduct his personal or other affairs and to exercise judgement"
    • It looks like the psychiatric institute was part of the hospital. I find newspaper references to "Jackson Memorial [Hospital]'s Psychiatric Institute" and "Jackson Memorial Hospital Psychiatric Institute". I have reworded to reflect this.
  • 128 "Mack's father termed it "a wandering mind" while Mack was given psychiatric treatment twice and hospitalized following a fall" - again, the direct quote is off. the father is reported as saying "mind wandering" and "his son's mind was wandering" but NOT "a wandering mind" - ok stopping here to discuss with nominators
    • Reworded. "Wandering" seems to be the only quotable word.

Overall

I am enjoying reading this rather labyrinthine story of the creation of a TV station. I'm about halfway through but started hitting problems on the spotchecks, particularly associated with the accuracy of direct quotations in 21, 42 and 96. I therefore did some more spotchecks and have the same problems with 110, 119, 127 and 128. Seems like we should discuss, because I am leaning towards failing this article right now since it needs some work on sourcing. Pinging nominators Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie -Mujinga (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have addressed all the prose-side issues you have raised, Mujinga, and I am also going to review the quotes that are already in the page. Expect more pings as we start untangling this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mujinga: I have addressed all the items found in initial spot checks and reviewed almost every direct quote on the page to ensure accurate reproduction of their contents. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great thanks for the prompt response, then I can continue with the review Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks

  • 138 - fine
  • 157 - fine
  • 185 - The permanent license was again shrouded by accusations of favoritism at the FCC, as Drew Pearson criticized the WLBW-TV bid for Broadcasting publisher Sol Taishoff's ownership interest in the company. Taishoff maintained a close relationship with the commissioners, prompting Pearson to remark that WLBW "has now ended up in the hands of the man who most influences the FCC—the same Sol Taishoff". - grr need to add "partly" to make quote correct
  • 97 All of those (lobbying on behalf of A. Frank Katzentine)... to whom (FCC commissioner Richard) Mack was obligated, by reason of friendship or political support... actually sought his vote for WKAT, however vigorously both he and they denied, they asked him for it in so many words. One would have to be quite naïve to accept... that they urged him only to decide... on the merits... Mack certainly knew what was being asked of him. - Judge Horace Stern[97]
  • this is being presented as a direct quote but it's not exactly what Stern said
  • 102 - fine
  • 103 - nope quoting headline again not the person, as mentioned already

Images

  • File:WPST 1958 logo.png - it would be fine to upload a logo to EN to illustrate this page, but the license on commons says "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain " and it's not clear to me who that was
  • File:L B Wilson.jpg - I'm not convinced by the rationale this is taken from an advert
  • File:George T Baker 1940.jpg - nice pic, however again im not convinvced by the rationale "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain" - who is that person? the copyright notice at https://www.floridamemory.com/learn/about/disclaimer.php is unclear to me
  • File:George B Storer.jpg - not convinced by the rationale "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain" - who is that person?
  • File:WPST-TV Miami "Good Morning" show interview of Julius La Rosa.jpg - i remain unconvinced by the rationale "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain" - who is that person? the copyright notice at https://www.floridamemory.com/learn/about/disclaimer.php is unclear to me
  • File:Richard Mack.jpg - still not convinced by the rationale "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain" - who is that person? the copyright notice at https://www.floridamemory.com/learn/about/disclaimer.php is unclear to me
  • File:Mack and Katzentine.jpg - i'm starting to think Nathan Obral as uploader is saying "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain " refers to them, but it doesn't work like that unfortunately. the ebay seller says "A local investor bought the photo archives from several US newspapers and we are selling the original press photos that have been sitting in drawers, folders and boxes at the newspapers offices for decades." - so i doubt the license is good
  • File:Charles Topmiller.jpg - not convinced by the rationale that this is taken from an advert
  • File:Molly Turner, WPST-TV hostess.jpg - not convinced by the rationale "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain" - who is that person? the copyright notice at https://www.floridamemory.com/learn/about/disclaimer.php is unclear to me
  • File:WPST Public Statement.jpg - hmm this is arguably an advert but i don't think it can be included as a clipping
    • Responding to these in preparation for a renomination soon. Mack and Katzentine.jpg has been removed. The Florida Memory items were mistagged. Florida Memory offers items under a public domain mark (see commons:COM:PDM), which muddied the water a bit — we've determined these items can likely stay (commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Florida Memory — or search the archives for "Florida Memory"). The other items have also been appropriately retagged as PD-logo, etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall2

OK I'm going to stop the review here and fail the nomination. Thanks for the work you both have put into the article and for the fast response from Sammie Brie, but I'm still experiencing problems with quotations (eg sources 97, 185, 103). Also, right now I don't think any images are appropriately licensed. I do think the logo can be used, but it needs a different license. This article needs some polishing and then I'm sure it can be a good article in future. At the moment it fails on criteria 2 and 6. Mujinga (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mujinga: I plan on fixing all the issues and geting to the bottom of the image licensing issues. I will say off the bat that Florida Memory has a lot of PD photos, so there are more than you might think. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WPST-TV/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look-see. It may take a bit to get familiar with all of the 100+ sources, so this might take a bit to get through fully. I'll note issues as I encounter them by stating them in the table below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Looked fine on first read. Will give another read for grammar/spelling after fixes are made.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second read, there are a few issues grammar/clarity issues that I think need to be addressed:
  1. it is owned by Public Service Television, Inc This feels like a "was" situation.
  2. prevailed after a protracted bidding process against three other applicants for the station license There appear to have been more than four applicants involved, based on the body.
  3. prior to their vote What is the vote about? It hasn't been introduced yet.
  4. After FCC commissioner and Miami native Richard A. Mack—directly influenced by close friend and practicing attorney Thurman A. Whiteside to vote for NAL—resigned in the scandal's wake Was the resignation influenced by Whiteside, or was mack influenced by Whiteside to do other things?
  5. four very high frequency (VHF) signals: 2, 4, 7 and 10 I think this is meant to be channels 2, 4, 8, and 10.
  6. two ultra high frequency (UHF) signals: 27 and 33 same as above.
  7. WGBS was the first applicant to withdraw on April 9, 1953, after Storer agreed to purchase WBRC-TV in Birmingham, Alabama, its fifth TV station and placing it at the limit under FCC regulations This sentence currently lacks parallelism.
  8. which would own the new company's stock The simple past here would be better and more clear.
  9. Haber and WFEC voluntarily withdrew their bid Was the bid formally made by the company, the person, or both? It currently reads as if the legal bidders were both the person and the company. Is this right?
  10. but it would not be until June that the applicants would be subject to a formal review Again, simple past at the beginning of this is better grammar-wise.
  11. resigned his position after a referendum over funding for an educational TV station failed the previous November The use of "over" here is colloquial. Something like "referendum involving" or "referendum on" would be standard.
  12. favoring the group's local ties, community involvement and broadcasting experience Add an Oxford comma (there are other lists in the article that use one and the article needs to be consistent).
  13. Groundbreaking began in June 1957 Groundbreaking is a very specific, finite event; the use of "began" is non-standard.
  14. they watched filmed messages from vice president Richard Nixon, Florida governor LeRoy Collins, FCC chairman John C. Doerfer, ABC head Leonard Goldenson and ABC vice president of television Oliver Treyz Again, an Oxford comma should be added to make this consistent with other parts of the article.
  15. With an announced start date of September 8 for the rehearing, FCC general counsel Warren Baker's list of witnesses to be summoned included Mack, Whiteside, George T. Baker, A. Frank Katzentine and former Miami mayor Perrine Palmer, Jr., plus the same two executives from Florida Power & Light implicated in the Biscayne Broadcasting license case: chairman McGregor Smith and vice-president Ben Fuqua, who also doubled as a lobbyist Two things: the first clause in the sentence seems to be an unrelated fragment to the rest of the sentence, and Oxford comma also needs to be consistent with the rest of the article.
  16. Baker declined to comment, but WPST-TV attorney Norman Jorgensen promised to contest Stern's ruling before the FCC and would appeal if needed, telling the Herald, "there will be litigation. You can bet on that." There's a parallelism issue here w.r.t. "promised to contest" and "would appeal".
  17. Appeals with the U. S. Supreme Court I think appeals to is better here language-wise.
  18. deteriorated to where he was admitted to the psychiatric institute I feel a "the point" is missing here, but I'm unsure about if this is or isn't standard American English;
  19. Mack's wife sued him for divorce Generally "divorced him" or "filed for divorce" is more standard.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Red-tailed hawk: I resolved everything on this list. Haber's bid was apparently in his own name. I agree with the "three applicants" as others had withdrawn by the time the FCC had a vote: just PST, Katzentine, Wilson, and North Dade Video. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me. Changed from "on hold" to "pass". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead contains the claim that [i]t is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but this claim does not appear to be present in the body of the article. I'm also struggling on sourcing for part of this claim, but I'll comment on that in the 2C criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On read-through, looks good to me now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. This has a references section that is appropriately styled. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. I'm looking at the sourcing in the lead for It is perhaps best known as the first television station in the United States to have its broadcast license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm just not seeing that in the cited source, which is pages 22-23 of this publication from 1961. What's not in question is that it was the first TV station to have its license revoked by the FCC, but I can't find where the source says that this is the thing that the station is best known for (the "perhaps" also feels weird here, as if to indicate that we're not sure about it). Is there a source that says this is what it's best known for, or is this original research? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read-through and spot-check, WPST-TV was launched under severe space constraints doesn't seem to be directly supported by the source. A source needs to be cited that explicitly says that there were severe space constraints.
Also, as evidenced by the date the ABC affiliation would go into effect, WPST-TV aimed for a August 1, 1957, sign-on The cited source doesn't give this as the cause; is this OR?
With respect to Opposition filed by WLBW-TV to the stay request claimed Baker valued the studio building at $6 million, five times the market value, the source uses the term "book value". Book value is different than market value; it's OR to say that the two were the same at the time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changes to resolve each of these. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me. Changed from "on hold" to "pass". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations nor plagiarism detected by Earwig, and I didn't see anything that jumped out when going through the sources and doing spot checks. Images also look to be suitably tagged as PD.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. This article appears to address most of the main aspects of this topic.

I also have doubts that current article's description of the scandal that led to the fall is sufficiently broad; the portion describing the scandal that caused the revocation seems to be missing coverage on the legal reasons that the sources say actually killed the license, which relates to the specific legal rules surrounding ex parte representations. The term doesn't currently get mention in the article (or linked to), but it seems like an explanation of the legal reasoning for the revocation of the license is needed for the coverage to be sufficiently broad. The article currently reads as if alleged bribery was the reason for the license being revoked, but my reading of the underlying sources is that they describe the ruling as having been a legal issue relating to ex parte representations at the end of the day. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by updates. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Looks good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The section titled "Richard Mack" scandal seems to shift focus away from the station and towards Mack as an individual. Some of the language in the section (e.x. George T. Baker refuted every claim made by Pearson) also seems to be treating the station's statements as being more authoritative than the cited sources (the cited source) merely reports them as statements rather than as proof that the station was innocent). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved to my satisfaction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All seem to have valid tags. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. media captions look good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Placing on hold for now pending fixes to lead and improvements w.r.t. 3a and 4. I'll do another read through after fixes/responses are made and will update this table. Feel free engage in threaded discussion within the table so as to keep the responses orgainzed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still on-hold after second read-through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All extant issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. Congratulations on the GA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: The 1b–2c issue has been fixed by removing the "best known for" part. The 3a issue has been fixed with several ex parte mentions in the lead and body. Still figuring out the issues on 4, though I did tweak the area you mentioned from "refuted" to "challenged". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: Regarding 4: Richard A. Mack's inclusion in the article is problematic as 1) the majority of the scandal wound up focusing on him over anyone else on the FCC and 2) he actually faced trial twice over the license awarding. He probably should merit an article of his own if but to alleviate the undue weight (I understand Sammi Brie had offered a similar solution).Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. I will await further edits consistent with these observations. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nathan Obral and Sammi Brie: Any updates on this front? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk @Nathan Obral Just made my first attempt at trying to trim the Mack scandal section. It's tough. The whole thing coming to light led to Mack's high-profile resignation (the fact that an exclusive came from The Minneapolis Tribune, far from Miami, might indicate the level of scandal), revealed a pattern of improper activity at the FCC, and of course the license denial. I've tried to keep anything relevant to a) the channel 10 case, b) NAL, and c) large implications that would be omissions if not included (e.g. pressure for Mack's resignation). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Red-tailed hawk, is there any update as to this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had taken your above comment as asking Nathan if he had any comment. I'll take a look at the updates. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WPST-TV&oldid=1206083725"