Talk:WUXP-TV

WUXP-TV has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 3, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal WUXP-TV is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from WUXP-TV appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that TV stations in Nashville and in Memphis, Tennessee, both on channel 30, lost their Fox affiliations in 1990?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WUXP-TV.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:WUXP-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I am happy to review this one. I will make comments atop the chart with questions or checked sections. Excited to work with you to get this article passed.

Spelling etc.[edit]

In History/The TVX Years should be "station's" for this sentence "The Taft stations purchase left TVX highly".

MT Communications ownership section "it was in second-place to WZTV among" probably should not be hyphenated.

These two should be fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summary[edit]

The facts presented in the lead are repeated and cited in the article with one exception.

This appears in the lead but is not repeated and cited in the body it is also sister to Dabl affiliate WNAB (channel 58).

Reworded the lead to avoid this requiring excessive body detail about WNAB. As a "shelled" station (its programming was basically scooped up and ghosted for ownership-related reasons), it's hard to describe it in the lead without too many references. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The article does not have images. There is a logo which appears to be correctly licensed

Citations[edit]

History

The TVX years - citations are all correct here

MT Communications ownership - citations are all correct here

Sullivan and Sinclair management Does the first sentence line up with the cite? - I cannot find mention of "purchased WZTV".

Act III owned WZTV at the time, and the entire company was purchased. See also [1]. (ABRY bought Act III and then formed Sullivan to run the former Act III portfolio). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local programming

News and public affairs

Sports

Technical information

Subchannels

ATSC 3.0

Analog-to-digital conversion

Stable[edit]

Only 22 edits since February 2023 so the article is stable. No warring.

Wording that may need attention[edit]

Lead says "tight market" is that colloquial?

TVX years says "stocked" and "in the running" might both be colloquial

TVX years, "had been chosen, as had a tower site" maybe use "selected"?

TVX years "The station affiliated that fall with the new Fox network" should is be "became" affiliated.

MT Communications ownership, "However, that deal fell apart, and the deal went the other way" the sentence may not be clear and uses colloquial language

@Bruxton: Fixed all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
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.	Yes
	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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
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.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	—
	7. Overall assessment.	I enjoyed reviewing the article!

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[edit]

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 Lightburst talk 16:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

... that TV stations in Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee, both on channel 30, lost their Fox affiliations in 1990? Source: https://archive.org/details/sim_televisionweek_1991-01-07_10_2_0/page/n3/mode/2up?q=WXMT pp 1, 134
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song) and Template:Did you know nominations/Taubaté pregnancy hoax
- Comment: Both pages are new GAs within the last week (WUXP, then WLMT).

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WUXP-TV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Starting review now. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: -- Howdy! I am working on this review (double nomination). I was able to validate the fact re: WLMT using the Electronic Media (Vol 10 Issue 2). I was able to validate the fact for WXMT as well. What I am missing is a statement that says that WXMT was renamed as WUXP or something equivalent. I will continue to look, but, please can you point that to me when you have a bit? Ktin (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: WUXP-TV meets eligibility criteria for newness. Article is well written. No concerns with tone. Earwig has no issues with tone. QPQ is done. No picture. Have an additional fact to verify once that is done the hook should be good to validate. Hook is interesting. Ktin (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: WLMT meets eligibility criteria. Promoted to GA and nominated within the time window. No concerns with tone. Hook is cited to EM magazine. No concerns with Earwig. QPQ done. Marking this approved. Ktin (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)