Talk:WSIL-TV/GA1

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.