Talk:WRBW

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this. IAWW (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

when UPN and The WB merged into The CW: This is either excessive detail for the lead, or needs to be explained more so a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter can follow it.

it was rebranded as Fox 35 Plus: "it" is rather ambiguous here. I suggest replacing with "the station"

an extension of WOFL: Including that WOFL was branded as Fox 35 would make this clearer and only takes a few words.

• Made tweaks on all of these. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hearing battle

presented engineering studies showing the channel was viable: Why was it not considered viable before? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• It hadn't been allocated before. The way this worked was that only channels allocated to a city could be filed for use. It makes sense that Orlando, a city

whose application specified nearby Winter Park instead of Orlando: Specified Winter Park for what? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• For the city of license. It used to be that you could specify any city within 15 miles of the allocation city.

in which the applications would be judged on several criteria, including integration of ownership and management (whether owners were involved in station operations) and an affirmative action criterion on minority ownership: Good explanation. I generally think these articles could do with more explanations like this – they make articles much more accessible for readers unfamiliar with these processes. IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is also why comparative hearing was written.

which was coming under increased scrutiny: From who? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Removed this.

giving Metro a possible edge: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Removed.

Press vs. Rainbow: Antenna battle

when work was reported to have started: By who? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reworded.

Press charged Rey with delaying the move of WKCF and thus reducing its revenues: Did the court rule in favour of this? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• No, as stated later in the article.

Early years

Looks good :)

Fox ownership

As early as October 2001: "As early as" implies it was early, which is an opinion. IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What are "charter outlets"? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reworded.

many of which were competitors to these stations—were chosen: Which stations, and were chosen for what? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reworded.

What does "these groups" refer to? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Tribune and CBS, as mentioned in the immediately preceding sentence.

What is "News Corporation"? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wikilinks

to serve its outgoing UPN stations as well as those that had not been selected for The CW: How are these two groups of stations different? IAWW (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rewritten to clarify that while MyNetworkTV was mostly designed for itself, dozens of markets had a jilted WB or UPN station that didn't make it to The CW or didn't want to pay more money to join it.

Subchannels

Looks good :)

Analog-to-digital conversion

Looks good :)

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

Nice, everything is archived. No issues with formatting for GA.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

News, magazines, official broadcasting bodies. I see no issues here.

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

Spot check based on this version.

[2]: Y

[20]: Y

[36]: Y

[43]: Y

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) clock

Earwig finds nothing, I will check print sources for any too close paraphrasing on spot check.

Media clock

Can you find an image in one of the newspaper reports relating to anything in the history section? IAWW (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alas, nothing I can use. @It is a wonderful world: Just completed the prose changes. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Sammi Brie, thank you for responding to all my points. I am happy with all your changes and explanations. Apologies for a few vacuous comments, I was rather sleepy when I reviewed the prose. You have made the Fox Ownership section way clearer now though, so I can actually follow the text without any difficulty. IAWW (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

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: promoted by SL93 talk 20:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that before it signed on, a Florida TV station was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case and a protest by a competitor over its antenna? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel-high-court-to-rule/158890498/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel-channel-65-gets-ant/108884140/
  • ALT1: ... that to permit a Florida TV station to be built, the owner of its tower had to intervene, as a competitor refused to reduce power so workers could safely operate? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-orlando-sentinel-channel-65-gets-ant/108884140/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sambas expeditions
  • Comment: Some fun hook ideas here, though less confident on the wording.

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 765 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC).

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: I think hook 1 is preferable, but "signed on" is slightly jargony and could be modified to "before it ever began broadcasting", or something shorter than that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• How about "that even before its first broadcast..."? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Also good. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 15:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that even before its first broadcast, a Florida TV station was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case and a protest by a competitor over its antenna?

• Approved as shown above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)