Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paramount Television Network/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Paramount Television Network

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [1].


Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less flashy intro: I am nominating this for featured article because it has been through GA review and peer review and meets the featured article criteria. The article failed its first FAC due to lack of reviews, although I advertised the nomination in several places.

This article has recently caught on with bloggers who have never heard of the topic, and who write their own summaries based on this article (for example here, here, and here), and one reader left a kind message on my talk page here concerning this article. Externally, this article has received a lot of positive feedback.

Particular attention has been made to include contemporary sources in this article, since most (actually, nearly all) modern-day reference works do not mention the subject of this article. When I began this article in 2007, the subject had only three valid Google hits (the rest were actually for UPN). Luckily, that has changed.

I'm aware that the subject is on an obscure, unpopular topic; finding a GA reviewer took several months, and the article also ended up on the Peer Review backlog. Closing the FAC, Sandy encouraged me to try a re-FAC in a week, so I have done so.

More flashy intro: Please review this article on a television network which was not a television network, created by people who were, according to one source, "dead set against television". Firsfron of Ronchester 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support well-written and apparently complete. Ucucha 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links.
  • Why do you have citations for only part of the lead? I can understand the citation for the quote at the end of the first paragraph, but don't see why the first sentence needs one.
I thought it might be challenged; I've removed it.
  • "one early audience estimate"—can you give a specific year?
1949, now specifically mentioned in the sentence.
  • "Having five O&Os was critical because it meant the network's shows would be seen in at least five major American cities."—is this sentence necessary? It doesn't seem to add much meaning.
Paramount's failure to obtain five O&Os doomed its network aspirations; I thought this was important, but I have removed the sentence at your request.
That's very clear already from the surrounding sentences, I think. Ucucha 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raibourn's position as treasurer on DuMont's board of directors gave him control of expenditures."—that's what a treasurer does, isn't it? Again, I think we can afford to lose this sentence.
Removed, thank you.
  • "The table below lists stations which carried Paramount Television Network programs. Paramount's two owned-and-operated (O&O) stations, KTLA and WBKB, appear in red. DuMont's O&Os, which aired little or no Paramount programming but which the FCC ruled were O&Os of the same entity, appear in green."—WP:ACCESS says we should not transmit information using color alone.
Thanks. Do you think that including "Paramount O&O" and "DuMont O&O" next to each owned and operated station in the table would help convey the information? That information is already present. Is the coloring then superfluous here, with the text information already available? Although both networks broadcast solely in black and white, DuMont was known for using green in its (non-television) advertising, which is why I chose the green for DuMont's O&Os, and a color on the opposite side of the spectrum for Paramount's O&Os, but the color information can be jettisoned if it's an issue. Advice appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That information is in a column "Paramount programs aired", which seems inappropriate. Perhaps you can just list the three DuMont O&Os in the introductory sentence, as you have done already for the Paramount O&Os, and leave the information out of the table. Ucucha 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the colors and the mention of O&O status from the table itself, adding an intro which explains which stations were O&Os of Paramount and DuMont. I saw, also, your work on the table removing borders and such, and thank you, but now in my browser (Firefox), the table doesn't load quite correctly. There's no line between the rows for WEWS-TV and WHK-TV, and also for WCAU and WFIL, WFMB and WJTV, WOI and WWJ, WBNS and WFAA, and WTOP and WTTG. The table's right-hand border also doesn't appear. Do you see this as well? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that in either Firefox or Safari. I just made an edit which might solve it; if we can't get at something that works without the unnecessary borders there were previously, we'll have to revert to the version before I made my edit. Ucucha 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support. I added some code back which fixes the problem in my browser and screen resolution (Firefox 3.5.9 at 1024x768) but YMMV (or, rather, your browser and resolution's MMV). It seems to work in IE 6 at 1024x768 or higher, too. Feel free to rework as needed. And thanks again for the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think the border surrounding the two tables is ugly and unnecessary, but if it solves your layout problem, it's the lesser of two evils. Ucucha 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your borderless table better, too, and I am not opposed to further experimentation. This version loads ok for me, but we should be able to get a borderless version to load correctly in most any modern browser. I have a feeling the solution is something easy, like a missed - or |. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here works for me, and also looks quite nice. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor quibbles, a great article, and I look forward to supporting soon. Ucucha 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, Ucucha; I'm working on your remaining observations. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you let me strike my own comments; in this case I agree they were all resolved, but that may not always be so. Ucucha 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Up until this year, I have not struck through other editors' comments on FACs at all, but I participated in several FACs recently where this was done; I thought this was the custom now, and am sorry that I need correction. Please excuse the breach of etiquette. No offense was intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and sorry if I sounded snarky. I know of other FACs where this happened, but there Sandy did not like it either. Ucucha 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. It did not sound snarky. I appreciate your review, comments, and thoughts, and absolutely do not want to offend someone who has taken time to actually review the article! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as I did previously. This article is definitely ready for prime time. (Pun intended). —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Charles. The pun is appreciated. :) If you see further issues, please feel free to bring them up. Again, thank you for everything. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Image What makes fortune city a valid source for the screen shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not pictured in any book source. The only alternate image is this one, which is less than ideal. I could drive 8 hours to the UCLA Film and Television archive and possibly get another screen shot, but this would fail Wikipedia:FU#Policy_2 #4: Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. No, each FU image needs a source, and this has one. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link is dead, though. Ucucha 03:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link loads ok for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If book sources don't use it, why are we using it? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron: it doesn't lead to the logo, but to a "denial" file with "FortuneCity" on it. Ucucha 11:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha: I couldn't get the "denial" file until I hit "refresh" on my browser. I now understand what you're seeing. I've replaced the link with one to the full page that has the image on it. Does this load for you? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach: One of Wikipedia's few advantages over books is our vast editor base, which allows us to include pertinent material which other authors, working individually, have neglected to include. A single image of the company's logo, with fair use rationale, is pertinent here. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. And I agree with your rationale for using the logo. Ucucha 16:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the use of this image advance the mission Fasach Nua (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ucucha. Let me know if you notice further issues. Your attention to detail (the work on the table, the link checking) is greatly appreciated. Fasach, English Wikipedia's use of non-free images is beyond the scope of this FAC. I appreciate your efforts to cull overuse of non-free media, but an article's use of a single non-free image in the infobox, with accompanying fair use rationale, has been deemed appropriate by the larger Wikipedia community for nearly a decade. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  1. Overlinking: "film"? "Television network" is ok as a link, on this rare occasion. LA and Chicago, sort of ... so well known to every English-speaker, same with NYC and Washington. The thing is, they're "chain-links", in that they're directly linked from their adjacent, more specific links (e.g., "KTLA").
  2. "the Emmy award winning children's series"—properly, it should be a triple hyphenated adjective. Or reword: "children's series ...., which won an Emmy award in [year]".
  3. "never" ... I toyed with just "not". Up to you.
  4. Do we need "also"? Perhaps there was an intention there, but I can't see it.
  5. "dropped" instead of "gave up on"? Not sure. And should it be "of owning and running a network", to contrast with selling to others?
  6. Last sentence could be a little repetitive with the previous. Can they be retionalised?

Origins

  1. After "Hollywood", perhaps a period, and after "properties" a semicolon? "were" after "among".
  2. "The company was one of the "big five" Hollywood studios."—by when? Link to previous or subsequent sentence more clearly?
  3. "were interested in the new medium of television"—now there's a place you could add a link: is there a section in "History of television" (or of US television, if there's such an article) that you could specifically link to?
  4. "in fact" not encyclopedic, usually. It's all supposed to be facts.
  5. "Paramount's Los Angeles television station, KTLA"—we've been told its location twice already.
  6. Do you need to mention that this was all monochrome until later? (I presume it was.)

I think the whole article needs a careful, independent copy-edit by someone who's not close to the text. Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Tony.
  1. I've reduced the linking throughout most of the article. I kept the links to cities in the affiliate table, but they can be jettisoned if you prefer. Most people will not know where Wausau, Wisconsin is.
  2. I rephrased "Emmy award winning children's series". Thanks.
  3. I changed "never" to "not"; this seems one of those 'six of one/half a dozen' type changes.
  4. Removing "also" makes the sentence weird here, IMO.
  5. "dropped" seems even less formal than "gave up on" to me, but I have incorporated "owning".
  6. I considered merging them to, "Paramount executives eventually gave up on the idea of owning a television network, but continued to produce series for other TV networks until 1995,when Paramount again entered the broadcast network field, launching the United Paramount Network (UPN)." but it's snaky and it wouldn't be correct: Paramount produced non-UPN series after 1995.
On the second part:
  1. I've changed the punctuation and wording exactly as you have requested. Thank you.
  2. I have reworded this. Thanks.
  3. History of television has little that I think is really germane to the subject of this article; it doesn't mention Paramount, KTLA, broadcast syndication, etc. But I can certainly link to it.
  4. I've removed "in fact". I have a pet peeve about "due to the fact" and "due to the fact that", and nuke them on sight. Thanks.
  5. I've removed the redundant mentions of where KTLA and WBKB were in several places in the article.
  6. I thought everyone knew that television started off in black and white. It seems obvious, and the black and white company logo reinforces the idea; Ucucha pointed out above that I didn't need to point out what a treasurer does, and this was a valid observation. I can include it, if you or someone has an objection to it not being included.
Regarding copyediting, I placed a request for copyedits on this article's companion article two years ago, and it's still sitting there without a copyedit. I've asked individual editors on both this article and that one, to no avail. I did send this article to PR and GA, so this article has had a lot of pruning and rewording by editors unfamiliar with the subject.
I thank you for your efforts, comments, and review. I am on hand to make whatever further changes you would like. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. WikiProjects on film and on TV might have copy-editors lurking about. Perhaps check the history pages of FAs in these subjects for tell-tale edit-summaries, and approach them? B and W TV: the problem is that colour was introduced into different jurisdictions at wildly different times. No big deal here, though. Tony (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ideas, Tony. There are several good editors on those projects who I approached during the development and various peer review processes of this article. I contacted user:DCGeist, an editor with Featured Articles in the field of broadcasting under his belt and a history of good copyediting, to tale a look at the article here, but he was apparently unable to look at the article or to respond. I left a second note, but he was apparently busy with other projects, and couldn't respond. I asked User:Mrschimpf, a serious WP:TVS editor for feedback here, but he, too, did not look or respond. I asked User:Mattderojas, the uploader of the logo, for input and feedback here, but he was not able to look or respond. I asked User:TMC1982, a WP:TVS editor who has added sourced content to articles, for feedback here, but he was unable to look at the article or respond. During this article's first FAC, I left neutrally-worded notes at WikiProject Television, WikiProject Films, and (against my better judgment) WikiProject Television Stations, but was unable to interest any of the editors at those three WikiProjects. The only editors who took a peek were FAC regulars, all of whom have now again weighed in above. I asked editor User:Edison, an editor with FAC experience and an interest in films and television, to take a look here, and this met with the most success, with four words removed from the article. Other than Edison's four-word change, my attempts at finding outside editors to review the article have not been successful. I can leave additional notes for individual editors, but am afraid the results will be the same. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have sent out new copyediting requests at related WikiProjects here at WP:Television, here at WP:FILM, and here at WP:TV Stations. I've also asked User:Nehrams2020, an editor at WP:FILM with prior GA and FA experience, for copyediting in exchange for same. I will continue asking individual editors every day until you are satisfied with the quality of the prose. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second update: David Fuchs and Nehrams made copyedits from the lead to the end of this article. David made these changes and Nehrams made these ones. Nehrams also made some suggestions on the article's talk page, which resulted in these changes. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Escalating disputes between the two companies—concerning breaches of contract, company control, and network competition—erupted regularly between 1940 and 1956, and culminated in the dismantling of the DuMont Network. I'm not sure that the parenthetical bit is strong enough for dashes rather than just running through to the 1956 comma
  • Programs section treats projects without articles inconsistently, redlinked before "additionally unlinked after. Personally I'd unlink, but your call
  • Some unneeded padding. please check that However is always necessary, and I don't think you need the additionally above.
  • outside of Los Angeles: redundant "of"
Thanks for the review, Jim. Greatly appreciated. I've removed the dashes and the "additionally". In the "Programs" section, I only wikilinked the nationally syndicated series, and did not wikilink the series which were planned for national broadcast, but which were seen only locally: nationally-aired programs are usually considered notable; local programs often are not. I've removed all the redlinks in that section, and will re-link them only as I (slowly) blueify them. I hate how the five sentences with the word "however" would read without the "however"s, and have kept them for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, David. Yes, I drew the broadcasting towers myself; they were intended to look like the tower in the logo. I've clarified that the base U.S. map used was this public domain map, recommended for use at Wikipedia:MAP#Hi-res_2_color_images. I've added to the FUR at File:Paramounttelevisionnetwork.jpg, with details on how it's low-resolution and why it's not replaceable; I thank you also for tidying the headings. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
    • "Escalating disputes between the two companies"→between Paramount and DuMont? It's not exactly clear.
    • " "undercut" DuMont, a company it had invested in"→whose quote is this? I don't really think the language is controversial enough to need quotes, but if it is being cited thusly it really should have inline credit.
    • Some of the paper publications have accessdates. Considering we have no idea where you retrieved them online, they're rather unnecessary with no URL.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I've clarified in the lede who the two companies were, I've attributed the quote to Auter and Boyd (the citation is in place seven words later at the end of that sentence), and I did a browser search on the word "Retrieved" and found it only in use with URLs. All citations to newspapers came from NewspaperArchive.com and NewsInHistory.com, two pay services which require log-in, so URLs are useless for non-members (and probably members, too, based on their searching algorithms). I greatly appreciate your continued comments and your work copyediting the article. Be aware that on line 15, you changed "which won an Emmy award in 1949" to "including the Emmy award-winning", which was the original wording before Tony asked for the change to "which won an Emmy award in 1949". I do not mind either version, but do not want to get dinged at FAC for failing to respond to reviewers' observations. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat the Emmy thing—I defer to Tony on that score. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry. Any other observations? The comments have died out. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It appears good to my eyes on all fronts. I think the copyedits performed have fixed the few issues I saw. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. I greatly appreciate the review. If you see anything else, please feel free to mention it... or fix it yourself, natch. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources seem OK, links check out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. And thanks also for your earlier peer review of this article. Both are greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paramount_Television_Network/archive2&oldid=1138468697"