Talk:WZDX

Fair use rationale for Image:Wamy tv 2007.jpg

Image:Wamy tv 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Transmitter location

I remember the tower on Green Mountain going up. The article doesn't say, but should say, when transmissions moved (I presume) from there to the WAAY tower. Is the Green Mountain tower still there? Still in use? -- ke4roh (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

On hold! Over to you. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

File(s)

All files are relevant, copyright-free and of acceptable quality; File:WZDX Fox 54 logo.png has a valid PD rationale and File:WZDX interview at College Football Playoff National Championship media day, Jan 2018.jpg is CC0 1.0 and was uploaded to Commons by the image's author.

Prose

• For the first paragraph, how about altering it to "In 1975 for the purpose of building an independent station, Thomas Barr and James Cleary …" since the assigned channels line is fairly long?
  • Reworked
• Does the source say why WAAY-TV and WYUR-TV opposed the proposal?
  • No
• Can Monte Sano be wikilinked to somewhere?
  • Yes, done
• Is winner really the correct terminology to use? Forgive my pedantry lol.
  • Changed
• "By that fall, the target was spring 1984" recommend > "By that fall, the target had been moved to spring 1984." (or similar)
  • Done
• "Tower site location issues" – The meaning of this is unclear to me.
• "When the Fox network" – wikilink Fox.
• The first sentence of the fifth paragraph is too long and reads uncomfortably. How about "When the Fox network began late-night service on October 9, 1986, WZDX initially abstained from affiliating with the network unlike many other strong independent TV stations across the country. This was despite the network wanting the station "badly"; program director David Godbout felt that his weekend shows were already attracting ratings and that he would have to charge too much for advertising in Fox programming for it to work economically."
• "by a consortium of Citicorp and Milton Grant in August 1989" – wikilink Milton Grant here instead of Grant Communications later.
• I would wikilink digital signal.
• Wikilink duopoly.
• This may be personal taste but I really dislike "The duopoly did not last long" as a stand-alone sentence. If you really wanted, you could perhaps alter the previous sentence to "creating a short-lived [or synonym] duopoly with …" instead.
• I would wikilink prime time in § News operation for unfamiliar readers.

Refs

Passes spotcheck on refs 7, 12, 18, 28, 34 and 38:

• Just a curious question about ref 21, what does "Action Jan 4" mean?
  • Action Jan. 4 - the FCC announced said action on January 4.
• For ref 48, where does it say that Nexstar announced said changes on 4 December?
  • Nice catch — that was in about the only part I left alone.

Others

• Recommend Template:Use American English (optional)
  • Done

@LunaEatsTuna: Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Perfect! All of my concerns have been addressed; pass. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

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: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an Alabama TV station initially refused to affiliate with the Fox network, which was said to want it "badly"? Source: https://www.genealogybank.com/newspaper-clippings/competition-heats-local-tv-ratings-arrive/afbphkvmibnqtrmipsunsuveoupjuikq_wma-gateway001_1677481454010
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rudi Čajavec (company)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 00:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WZDX; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• GA status promotion was on time and other DYK requirements. I didn't find any close paraphrasing and a QPQ has been done. The hook, I'll be honest, isn't really that great and may not seem significant to non-TV/radio buffs. Maybe something else can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Not the most fertile DYK ground here. If not this, I don't know quite what to say. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that a man applied for channel 54 in Huntsville, Alabama, after seeing it on a list of unused TV station allotments?

Probably still too specialist unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't find another hook, Narutolovehinata5, maybe it's best to hold this one back from DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Other than the mast replacement accident that killed three, I'm not seeing anything hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, withdrawing. I have two other noms from my most recently approved GAs that will probably make stronger hooks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, Narutolovehinata5, might something be done with the fact that while initially the owners (Media Central) spurned Fox, they ultimately came around a few months after declaring bankruptcy in July? (The timing works, though there is no established cause and effect. The source says that the new station manager, who took over in September, expressed interest in Fox at that time. It also says that Fox was starting on December 5, and the source article was published on October 31, so I don't know where "November of that year" comes from.) If not, I agree that there isn't much else to hang a hook off of. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Sammi to decide if she wants to continue the nomination with the above suggestion. Personally it would depend on what the actual wording would be, although as you said, there's no evidence that there was a causation, so suggesting there was one might fall under OR or SYNTH. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty SYNTHy, so I will pass. I can prove it for KBSI but not here. Also fixed the copy error. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I suppose this means you're withdrawing the nom? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Yes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)