Talk:Paramount Television Network/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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