Talk:WSIL-TV

WSIL-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: May 9, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
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).

rant about broadcast quality

A lot of areas in the northern part of WSIL viewing area cannot get this station with Charter cable TV. This consists of almost all of Washington County (except Ashley and Radom), and parts of Marion, Jefferson, and Clinton counties. This station was provided by an previous cable provider but in the mid 1990s Charter bought them out and took away WSIL from the cable lineup. The residents are forced to use high quality television attena towers with the direction pointing towards Marion just to be able to watch this television station, which is difficult to do because they require building permits and can only be a certain height. Even so, the quality is very grainy. Charter replaced WSIL with KDNL, which nobody in the area will watch KDNL because the quality of that station is horrible. Kimmy78 17:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WSIL logo.jpg

Image:WSIL logo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. IAWW (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2025 (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:WSIL-TV/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)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. IAWW (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie, review is below. Another great article from you. IAWW (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lead

since its coverage area is not as large as those of the other major stations in the market: Be clear you are talking about transmission coverage and not news coverage.

though less so [now] than in decades past: Insert word for clarity

Construction on channel 22

Looks good :)

Move to channel 3; construction of KPOB

greatly increasing its coverage area: Opinion. Can it be replaced with a fact? Otherwise, attribute.

I think explicitly state that the channel 15 transmitter is KPOB-TV, and that it transmitted the same programming as WSIL.

from September 1966 to October 1967: Why was it off air during this time?

Unstated "renovations" of equipment and facilities. The newspaper barely cared, too.

New ownership in the 1980s

Understanding the transaction details requires the reader to infer that O. L. Turner was a heavy shareholder or the owner of Turner-Farrar. This should be stated explicitly to make it clearer.

Could you also explicitly state that the rest of the stock of WSIL was bought by other investors, assuming that is the case?

faced a monumental task in trying to improve WSIL-TV: Opinion, attribute or cut

that was primitive even by small-market standards: Also opinion, I personally think attributing this one would be best.

which only had 30 total employees, including only five news staffers: Cut the "only"s to get rid of the implicit opinions

attracted just five percent: Same with "just"

Generally I like how you have used statistics to explain the state WSIL was in, rather than just not including the information or including it as opinions. I wish more articles would do this sort of thing.

in Creal Springs was dwarfed: I think "dwarfed" is editorialising

significantly limiting: Same with "significantly"

While it covered most of the Illinois portion of the market very well: Can the opinion "very well" be replaced with what grade of signal it was?

only got a grade B signal: "only" suggests that signal quality was poor, which is an opinion.

It's a secondary signal, and that's not opinion.

Can "short-spaced" be linked, explained or reworded? I don't know what this means.

WSIL had to conform its signal to protect WCIA: A little too technical for me to understand

While he realized the signal limitations would consign WSIL to third place in the market: The verb "realized" implies he was right, but that is an opinion.

but remained far behind the competition: cut "far" for neutrality

one of 57 ABC affiliates that refused to air NYPD Blue during its first season in 1993–1994: Why? The actual reason isn't explicitly explained anywhere in the paragraph.

This article has had a HangingCurve problem, and this is where it was worst. I've had to cut more stuff here.

Quincy and Allen ownership

Looks good :)

Technical information

Looks good :)

Sources clock

[3]: Y

[10]: Doesn't support "The station had no network affiliation in its early months"

Needed another ref to spell out the obvious.

[11]: Y

[18]: Y

[43a]: Y

[52]: Y

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) clock

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

I don't see any issues with reliability.

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

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Earwig finds nothing, I found no issues on the spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y

Covers the station's entire lifespan

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media Y

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

Suggest adding archive links to the few references that do not have them IAWW (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern monetary conversions would be nice IAWW (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world: Should be done. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie Thanks, passing now. IAWW (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... ~~that an Illinois TV station was said to have a reputation for "illustrat[ing] a flood by showing its audience a hand-drawn picture of a lake in the corner of the screen"?~~ Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/southern-illinoisan-channel-3-gets-ready/128305365/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Regulations on children's television programming in the United States

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 768 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Problem is, I checked the original source, and it's not clear whether the station ever actually did this, or if it was a general perception as "the sort of thing those cheapskates might do", or if it was a phrase that Mackie Nicholes came up with while talking to Ed Bean, or if it was a phrase that Ed Bean came up with by himself. "It takes a long time to change people's viewing habits, Nicholes admits. The perception of Channel 3 as a station that illustrates a flood by showing its audience a hand-drawn picture of a lake in the corner of the screen, rather than sending a film crew to the scene, may not die easily. Did they mean this literally? DS (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I'd gotten pinged on this, DragonflySixtyseven. I've improved the in-text attribution to the newspaper article. Let's try this: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0a: that a newspaper columnist described an Illinois TV station as one that would "illustrate a flood by showing its audience a hand-drawn picture of a lake in the corner of the screen"?

Ah, sorry about not pinging. ALT0a will work; I'll do the rest of the review in the morning. DS (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I don't feel up to reviewing this one, sorry. Thank you for taking into account my issues with the hook. Someone else take over? DS (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: review is as follows: article recently promoted to GA and is well-sourced. QPQ is good to go. Earwig shows impressively low numbers. Hook is hooky, sourced, and cited at the end of the sentence. ALT0a is good to go. Nihil obstat ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]