Talk:Paramount Television Network

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paramount Television Network/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall this article is good, though I do have a concern:

• Ref #11 (ieee history) is a deadlink.
• I'm a little confused as to why Paramount was competing against itself by tackling DuMont when it had a major share in it. Not a concern with the article itself, just strikes me as weird.

There's nothing really wrong with the article and how it reads. Just fix the deadlink and we're good. I'l put it on hold and pass when it's fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wizardman. The IEEE history link was still live in December, when I nommed the article for GA. I later noticed it had died, and followed the procedure listed on the website to report the dead link. I received an automated reply:

"Thank you for your e-mail message! Your message has been received by the IEEE Web Master.

Please be assured that your feedback is being reviewed.

If you are writing to...

Share a suggestion, comment or concern, please know that the IEEE website will continue to evolve and your feedback will be considered for implementation in the next phases of development of the site.

Report a broken link, your message will be forwarded to the appropriate person for correction.

Ask a general question, your message will be routed to a qualified person who will respond to you shortly.

Thank you for contacting IEEE!

IEEE Web Master

445 Hoes Lane

P.O. Box 1331

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331

Please do not reply to this message. This is an an autoresponse."

They never fixed the link or sent another reply.

I thought perhaps that the Internet Archive might have a copy of the page in its database, but they do not. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that between White's, Bergmann's, Weinstein's, or Hess' books that the IEEE reference can be replaced, but I will need to double-check. Hess' book was an interlibrary loan book which I no longer have, and I would need to re-order it through the library; White's book was also an interlibrary loan, but I photocopied a couple of key chapters for future use, so I'll review it and see. I own both Bergmann's book and Weinstein's book, so I'll try to review them tomorrow (I own all the other books cited in this article, too, but they won't have that particular material). Long story short, I'll work on referencing reference 11 tomorrow.

On point two, about the competition: yes, it is odd, and it's never been fully explained, I think. White's book states that Paramount "unwisely competed against itself" by operating the PTN at the same time as partly owning the DTN. Bergmann, who witnessed these events, said something like "it was the damnedest thing" (paraphrasing this one). White's book mentions diversification as Paramount's motive for moving into television, and also mentions the growing distrust between the companies, but doesn't (I think) specifically mention the reason for the direct competition, except that: (a)Paramount viewed DuMont as inept and (b)wanted to keep their foot wedged in the door of the TV industry whether or not the FCC forced them to sell DuMont; I'll double-check if there's something sourceable that I can include, because if it confuses you, it will confuse other readers, too. But this is what the sources state.

I appreciate the review and your your fixes to the article itself. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the article makes more sense now that the changes are implemented. As a result I will pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Wizardman. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I went through and made some changes, and have a few suggestions for further improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead only goes until 1995, another statement about the last paragraph would better summarize the article.
• Why did FCC prevent PTN from acquiring additional stations?

Because they didn't trust Paramount, a company which had violated many anti-monopoly laws in the 1920s-1940s. I've attempted to explain this in the text, because if it confuses you, it probably needs clarification. I can reword as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was clarified in the article, but I figure it would be better to also include a few more details within the lead as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. This is why it's useful having people read these articles for clarity. I've read the material so many times that the facts are burned in my head, and I miss things that aren't obvious to the reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins

• Explain "big five".

Thank you. I've wikilinked this; is a more detailed explanation needed? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• FCC acronym is mentioned without full title (introduced in the lead, but assume that readers may skip the opening paragraphs).

Thanks. I've added this to the body. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Relations between Paramount and DuMont were strained..." Need to specify if this is between the company or Dr. DuMont.

Both, really, but I've modified it to "DuMont staff", which would include Dr. DuMont. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Dr. DuMont claimed that the original 1937 acquisition proposal required that Paramount would expand its television interests "through DuMont"." Since this is a quotation, it would be helpful to have a citation directly follow the statement.

Done; although this is a duplicate citation, I don't think you are the first person to request this, so I will acquiesce. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Programs

• Could the list be converted to prose? Since it is just a partial list, some of them could be grouped together by type. Others could have further explanation.
• If not converted to prose, why do some of the citations follow the title, while others are at the end of the statements?

The idea was that the names of these series would possibly be challenged, or the fact that they were Paramount Television Network series would be challenged; I included citations for other material that seemed likely to be challenged, but not for hum-drum things like "this was a charades game". But since it is confusing to you, it will be confusing to others. I'll rework this section tomorrow. Thanks for pointing this out. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This may take longer than I thought. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It should now be clearer that the first citation cites the name of the series and the fact that it aired on Paramount's network, while subsequent citations cover the explanatory text. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Staff

• With your knowledge of the topic, is Paul Raibourn likely to ever become an article? Otherwise I don't think you need the one red link in the article for it.

He was the president of the PTN. Many books on television history discuss him. I never created an article because none of the material exactly paints him in a very nice light ("the coldest man I ever met", according to Bergmann, and that's the kindest printed word). But he was definitely as notable and disliked as Paramount VP Klaus Landsberg, who, it is claimed in Kisselof's book, gave his TV station staff cancer. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Raibourn trimmed DuMont's budgets at a time when the network should have been expanding." This should have a citation directly afterwards, other wise it looks like OR.

Do you really want three citations to the same source in a row? I tend not to duplicate citations, but will add it if you think it is best. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since an article can constantly change and statements move back and forth, it's best to cite everything. A new editor could add a statement in between the two sentences and we'd have no idea which citation supports which statement (well, experienced editors could go back in the page history, but this could take a while). If it's an issue of being the same citation, perhaps another source could be used, or the sentences shuffled around/combined. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cited, to Auter and Boyd, and also Goldenson's book. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Affiliates

• Consider uploading File:Paramount Television Network.png to Wikimedia Commons so other language Wikipedias can benefit from it.

I'll definitely consider it, but even DuMont, which is much better known than the PTN, has almost no interlanguage articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You never know, I've seen some obscure articles on here go on to other language Wikipedias. In addition, if this makes FA, there might be some interest to create it elsewhere. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Points taken. I'll upload it to Commons tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image to Commons. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• There are a few two-sentence paragraphs in this section. To improve the flow of the article, these should either be expanded or incorporated into other paragraphs.

Thanks. I've merged one and am thinking about the possibilities for expansion on the other.

David moved the other sentence; it's now combined in another paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Why does "WABD" not have any series listed?

Because it didn't air any Paramount programs. I speculate that this was possibly DuMont's revenge for KTLA not airing DuMont programs, but that can't actually be sourced. Paramount programs did air in New York City, just not on WABD. WABD was already broadcasting 200 original DuMont series during this era. WABD is listed in the affiliate table only for the sake of completion: because the FCC ruled it as part of Paramount. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a note could be added to the paragraph before the table stating this. Otherwise someone might think a vandal went in there and deleted a series or something. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't cite an absence here. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

End

• Is there a better heading title besides "End" that could be used?

I've changed the heading title, and am open to alternate suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Still seems kind of plain, but keep an eye on it and maybe something else will pop up. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• "another exception, Hollywood Reel, aired in Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Omaha, Pittsburgh, Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Syracuse, and Washington, D.C., in 1950" Instead of the long list, can we just say over ten markets including maybe three of the cities?

Thanks. I've reworded. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Any known reason why American Vitamin Corporation pulled its sponsorship?

The source states the company was readjusting its sponsorship schedule, which I don't think deserves mention here. I did add the fact that they were paying $25,000 per week for the two series; hopefully, that is useful.

I figure that if we're going to mention the pulling of the sponsorship, there should be an explanation why. This could also be because it's the first sentence of the paragraph, which seems to indicate it was pretty important. If you don't want to mention why, maybe consider moving the sentence somewhere in the middle of the paragraph. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this was particularly helpful. I've moved it in, though still trying to keep the cancellations sequential, for the reader's sake. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughts and ideas for improvement, your copyedits and your questions. I'll continue making the improvements listed above, including a reworked "program" section, tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Austin, Minnesota?

The chart of affiliate stations lists Austin, Minnesota, as an affiliate, but the map provided does not show Austin, MN, but rather Austin, Texas. Is this a mistake in the list of affiliates? Davidgra (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a mistake on the map. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll correct it ASAP. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paramount Television Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720095358/http://www.broadcasting101.ws/arizona_tv_sked-1951-1952.htm to http://www.broadcasting101.ws/arizona_tv_sked-1951-1952.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)