Article(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch
Nominator:Sammi Brie (talk ·contribs)16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer:It is a wonderful world (talk·contribs)20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to review the last of this batch :)IAWW (talk)20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Sammi Brie, I found several issues with the source-text integrity of this, and I noticed some other issues very uncharacteristic of your nominations (uncited passages and grammar errors) on a quick look through. The lead also looks a bit short compared to the length of the article. Details on the spot checks are below. I note it has been a couple years since you made any major edits to this, and your authorship is lower than normal, so I suspect it has suffered fromentropy. Could you clean this up before I do a full review? If you have the time and inclination to do that in the next week, I'll keep this review open, otherwise it may be best to close the review and you can work on it outside of the GA system.IAWW (talk)20:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I am not pinging yet, but I have done the first half of changes needed. Basically coming at this and cleaning pieces up that I'd write differently now. I will note a user who can load pages up with mush with the best of them lives in Charlotte and has been a bit of a headache in some pages in this market. The consummation notice piece may be hard to replace.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)08:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured out what was salvageable and what wasn't, @It is a wonderful world. I've taken the chance to improve some things to more current spec and add a few things here and there. It still might be a bit bumpier than my typical GAN. Luckily for you, I can snap my fingers and summon 20 more GANs to fill my empty coffers...Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)19:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing stuff up! I am aware ofUser:Sammi Brie/Pipeline... Are they pretty much all GA ready? Full review incomingIAWW (talk)16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes @It is a wonderful world and I actually have decided on my next batch of nominees. I've made the first set of GA changes too (up to "pushed up its launch").Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4)
clock
[edit]Nine groups applied for the channel,[4] including Piedmont Crescent Broadcasting Company, which included Harvey Gantt, the mayor of Charlotte, and officials associated with local radio station WPEG and its owner, the Suburban Radio Group: This should use some more varied punctuation or be split into two sentences to make it easier to parse.
which settled with the other applicants: Can "settled" be linked?
- Not necessary. I should have put it in suggestions. I think it's just about technical enough to be linked but you can choose whether to link it or not.IAWW (talk)16:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to do so, it had to divest itself of two Charlotte-market radio stations: I think a short explanation of why would be appropriate here.
Channel 46 pushed up its launch: Is this meant to mean they lauched earlier or later?
I think the way you reworded the last paragraph is very clear and understandable to a less technical reader.
UPN and CW affiliation
[edit]"WMYT" can be linked I think
Sale to Fox Television Stations and switch to Fox
[edit]Several issues raised in the spot check
"time brokerage agreement" can be linked
The deal included a time brokerage agreement: Make it clear we are back to talking about the sale of WJZY to FOX.
The deal included a time brokerage agreement clause that would have had Fox take over the operations of WJZY and WMYT and acquire the duopoly's non-license assets for $8.24 million if the deal was not closed by June 1: Why is this relevant? It seems to be just a clause in a legal agreement that was never carried out.
WCCB announced that it would become the new CW affiliate for the Charlotte market on July 1, the date its Fox affiliation contract ended: I think this would be better in a footnote since it isn't strongly related to WJZY
Sale to Nexstar Media Group
[edit]"2022" season can be linked to "2022 Carolina Panthers season"
News share agreements
[edit]This section seems to treat the WBTV newscasts as more noteworthy than newscasts produced by other stations and hosted on WJZY. I don't see any justification for that. From the perspective of WJZY, it seems that a leased newscast is just a leased newscast? Some specific examples:
- The first sentence mentions only the WBTV newscasts
- "The 1990s attempt": Running WBTV newscasts are an "attempt" (I'm not really sure what that means), but the WTVI newscasts were not?
I hope I'm being clear enough here.
The newscasts on WTVI belong in the articles on WBTV and WTVI (neither of which have gotten a rewrite). The point of this being a level-3 header is to distinguish thethree separate times WJZY had news produced by WBTV from the newscasts WJZY now produces itself. I've also added some refs about the 1990s attempt.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c) 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)@It is a wonderful world: Also pinging since I did changes up through this section.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Building a newsroom
[edit]Technical information and subchannels
[edit]Spot check numbers based onthis version.
Health/formatting (Criterion 2a)clock
[edit]Reliability (Criterion 2b)clock
[edit]Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d)clock
[edit][29a]:
- Doesn't support the contrasting "Although Fox"...
- the network was interested in buying a station in a steadily growing market: Not supported
- another factor was that Charlotte: It was the only factor mentioned in the source
- another factor was that Charlotte was home to the Carolina Panthers, a National Football Conference team whose games air primarily on Fox; Abernethy said that Fox had set its sights on getting an owned-and-operated station in Charlotte specifically because it was an NFC market: Can be much more concise
- The acronym "NFC" needs to be defined
[29b]: Everything this supports is out of scope in my opinion. The text also has similar issues to [29a].
Initial spot check |
|---|
Citation numbers based onthis version [52] link no longer worksIAWW (talk)20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] There are two clear uncited passages: - (WHKY-TV [channel 14] in Hickory had signed on in 1968, but mostly targeted the northwestern portion of the market).
- The station's rapid growth came at a time when the Charlotte market had become large enough to support what were essentially two full-market independent stations (WCCB, like most early Fox affiliates, was programmed largely as an independent until 1995).
[13]: - Under Capitol, the station grew seems to be SYNTH.
- I thinkcourting other stations is a bit editorialized
- the incumbent station had a weaker signal: This isn't explicitly supported. The closest is "exceeds the technical capacity", but "technical capacity" does not necessarily mean signal
- NBC was reported to also covet Capitol's other broadcast property, WRAL-TV, then the CBS affiliate in Raleigh: I think this is just overdetail. The article isn't about NBC.
[14]: Doesn't supportThough this change did not occur [15]: Doesn't support at leastWJZY owned a large amount of syndicated programming, but did not have nearly enough time in its broadcast day to air all of it. A solution came with the sign-on of WFVT [43a]: I think there is some slight editorializing here, likeThe differences in the operation were also reflected in differing job titles goes a bit beyond the source. I think the main issue here though is overdetail though. A full large paragraph on a show based on one web source is too much. SeeWP:BALASP. - Everything here has been removed or updated accordingly. The fourth bullet on [13] I'd rather have kept, but I decided that was a bit out of scope. It isn't forWCNC-TV. Charlotte camevery close to inducing an NBC affiliation switch.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)21:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WJZY's local news service on January 1, 2014, with the debut of a nightly hour-long 10 p.m. newscast titled MyFox Carolinas Primetime: There is no verb Suggestions: [28] is a bare URL [26] link status is wrong [43] link status is wrong and there needs to be a link to the archive of page two Suggest adding archives to non-dead links to prevent link rot |
Copyvio (Criterion 2d)clock
[edit]Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)clock
[edit]Stable (Criterion 5)
Y
[edit]Tags (Criterion 6a)Y
[edit]No issues with the tagging or free-use rationales
Captions (Criterion 6b)Y
[edit]The captions need citations.IAWW (talk)20:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Decided to drop them altogether.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)
[edit]
