From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not an ad

I deleted a lot of words reading like ads. I took out words like "very popular newscast," and changed it to just "newscast." Also the trivia about Hurricane forecasting, that read like a commerical or ego trip for the meteorologist. Just present facts and statements. This isn't an ad.

HD caps...wow.

I'd LOVE to see more articles of stations broadcasting HD newscasts with HD screenshots like that. Kitch, you rock! ViperSnake151 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Possibly Unrelated Content

The following was added to the controversies section after WFTV was denied access to the Obama campaign due to a series of questions by Barbara West. Although it appears to be factually accurate, it does not appear to be directly related to the controversy at hand as it pertains to Ms. West's personal rather than professional life.

"Barbara West is married to Republican strategist Wade West. [1] Wade West is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." [2] In addition, West has made multiple campaign contributions to the Republican Party. [3]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate7x70 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It has everything to do with it, it is a conflict of interest. -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
While I agree that it may present a conflict of interest, the information about Barbara West's marriage, her husband, and past campaign contributions SHOULD NOT belong in the WFTV article but on the Barbara West page, which it does. As initially stated above, the paragraph in question pertains more to Ms. West personally rather than to WFTV and the controversy at hand. I do feel that this last sentence (recently added): "This has led some left-leaning blogs to criticize the anchor for the potential of a conflict of interest in the interviews." should be able to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokead ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
We should check other news anchors (not only those from WFTV) and see if their spouses' political affiliations are also outlined before including this in Barbara West article too. I would venture to guess there are many conflicts of interest out there in the news industry that have gone unnoticed for one reason or another. For example, Ted Turner was married Jane Fonda and both are very vocal democrats. Should they be listed on the CNN wiki page as conflicts of interest? Advocate7x70 ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate7x70 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It is illogical to claim there's a "conflict of interest" because a reporter registered as a Republican asked tough questions of a Democrat. If you follow that logic, then reporters who are Democrats should not be allowed to question a Republican. (That would be a problem, since reputable studies indicate that close to 90% of reporters are Democrats.) As noted elsewhere on this page, Ms. West asked very tough questions of Sen. McCain in an interview the next day. That is the true test of a reporter's fairness. Her own party registration and her husband's should not be included in the description unless it is a factor for every other media person noted in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.142 ( talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

User with the IP 75.36.150.142 is making the point I was trying to make, but doing so in a much clearer manner thank you. I do believe the controversy section as it stands is still somewhat biased against Ms. West, however. Any suggestions on how to make it more balanced? I'm afraid any additions I make would reflect my own bias. Advocate7x70 ( talk) 02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not particularly convinced by the hearsay - especially quoting that "reputable studies" show that 90% of media anchors are Democrats. There are several problems with statements like these - a) What is the underlying methodology? b) What makes THIS particular set of studies reputable? c) How was such a study evaluated by other think tanks et cetera? Unfortunately, there is a wide misconception amongst the public, peddled by interest groups, that the media have a devastatingly liberal influence on current affairs in the United States. If this is so, then how do the critics concerned explain to themselves that somehow the majority of Administrations has been Republican? I think we here at Wikipedia need to be particularly careful with weasel words and fabricated claims of "authenticity", as much as a pain this is. As for the West controversy: Of course it makes a difference that she has a conflict of interest. However, it should be her rabidly hostile questions towards Biden that should be the focus (particularly when compared to the interview with Senator McCain the day after - when she basically leaves McCain time to expand on his talking points and "lets him off the hook" halfway through the interview), not her party registration. There are Republicans who supported the President-elect, after all Prqc ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC). reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html
  2. ^ http://www.solgamesfl.com/www/sol/view_page.php?category_id=23&page_id=67
  3. ^ http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=FL&last=West&first=Wade

Bias

The "Controversy" section seems one-sided as it doesn't provide any arguments for Ms. West, but only comments that attack her. Tschow ( talk) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't listing other conflicts of interest be a given if a reporter would have behaved as Ms. West did? Is anyone disputing the fact that she displayed a conflict of interest, especially in regards to her quoting Marx? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.9.216 ( talk) 06:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I dispute your "fact" that she displayed a "conflict of interest." Your comments indicate a thorough ignorance of journalistic ethics. The point is that Ms. West asked fair and valid questions. Her fairness is evidenced by the reasonable observation that the very next day she interviewed Sen. McCain and asked him very tough questions as well. Ms. West demonstrated her fairness regardless of her party registration, which is something many other media reporters do not do. If her party registration is reported, however, it would only be fair to report the party registration of every other prominent media reporter, which would indicate (as studies show) that 90% of them are liberal Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.142 ( talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My point is that other reporters behave as she did all the time. It's what they do. Ask tough questions and press for answers. If it's a conflict of interest for her, then it should be a conflict for other reporters too. Also quoting Marx is not the conflict of interest in question, as that is not a conflict of interest. The quesiton was her spouse's relationship to the republican party. Advocate7x70 ( talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that the section on the Biden interview chould be cut down to a sentence or two. This was an interview of a vice-presidential candidate on a local TV station. Nothing illegal or scandalous was alleged by either side. It also seemed to have had no effect on the outcome of the election. On the other hand, if you feel it was that important start a new article on the interview itself. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone added a second paragraph about the interview. I left it at that and took off the separate "controversy" section. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Does anyone want to me to obtain the names of the people or of the cleaning company that takes care of the newsroom at this station? I am willing to research this. I think it would be interesting.--
Greg Starks (
talk) 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
reply

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.corporationwiki.com/North-Carolina/Tryon/del-caribe-orlando-llc/28462127.aspx
    Triggered by \bcorporationwiki\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

GA Review

Passed. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 00:17, 22 August 2023 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WFTV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog ( talk · contribs) 05:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Three explanations for another one. To prevent the GAN backlog from going into the red, the Orlando, Florida market is familiar to me, and to keep the streak along with the familiar television stations article reviews I have already completed. I might review another one, depending on the situation. If you get tired of my reviews, feel free to tell me off after this one, haha. This review will be done either Sunday, August 20 or Monday, August 21. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 05:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I am only sending up pages since I have a massive backlog myself. I have another 130 or so pages to bring to GAN. Some comments from me. This station had a tortuous early history and is really unlike anything I have written in that regard. Also, unfortunately there are no available free-use images related to the station, which is a shame because of the volume of text this article has. (I look for images as part of any article overhaul.) Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 06:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Holy, 130. That is amazing and boggles my mind, haha. Well done on the goal and what you have accomplished so far! I think the max I have pushed out articles for GA consistently was 11 at one time and in the same breath. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 21:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The suggestions for prose are as follows:

Prose

Lead

  • WFTV (channel 9) is a television station in Orlando, Florida, United States, affiliated with ABC. might read better as WFTV (channel 9) is a television station affiliated with ABC in Orlando, Florida, United States.
    • Not a bad idea, though we don't have many leads written like that
  • It had originally been granted ... could be simply It was originally ...
  • However, in the same year the station went on the air ... could be simply However, the same year the station went on air ...
  • Under a court order, Mid-Florida ceded operational control of WFTV in 1969 to Channel Nine of Orlando, Inc., which was a consortium of the five companies vying for the full-time broadcast license. In this instance, "which was" could be omitted.
  • Many of their 67 shareholders became millionaires when SFN Companies purchased WFTV in 1984 as part of its expansion into the broadcasting industry. might read better as Many of their 67 shareholders became millionaires when SFN Companies purchased WFTV in 1984 to expand into the broadcasting industry.
    • No: they had already bought another company in broadcasting.
  • WFTV, though it has faced renewed ratings competition since 2000, continues to lead ratings in the Orlando–Daytona Beach market. may read better as Although WFTV has faced renewed ratings competition since 2000, it continues to lead ratings in the Orlando–Daytona Beach market.

History

Permitting and construction

  • Over the course of 1952 ... could simply be Throughout 1952 ...
  • ... there were seven groups seeking three channels ... might read better as ... seven groups were seeking three channels ...
  • three channel 9 as three-channel 9 for clarity on application and not number of stations?
    • three applicants for channel 9
  • ... believing the FCC to have overemphasized positives of WLOF's application Possible missing word "the" before "positives".
  • WLOF-TV began broadcasting on February 1, 1958, as the second station in Orlando itself. I would omit "itself" here.
    • No. Someone will say "where's WESH?" But WESH hadn't yet really moved into Orlando.

Ex parte influence scandal

  • As WLOF-TV was getting on the air, a scandal exploded into view involving the FCC's decisions in several contested television station cases. I would move the modifier "exploded into view" to the end of the sentence for better reading.
  • The resulting congressional investigation uncovered other cases of ex parte communications between ... "cases of" may be redundant here.
    • Not quite, since there might be multiple communications in one case.
  • Among the proceedings investigated by the committee was that of channel 9 in Orlando could be simply Among the proceedings, the committee investigated channel 9 in Orlando as the extra words compound the former.
    • The "that of" is needed here still.
  • Stephen J. Angland, investigator for the committee ... Possible missing word "the" before "investigator".
  • ... the FCC showed openness to this request in February 1959 and announced it would do so in March pending the appeals court proceedings could use a comma after "March".
  • To avoid repetition among succeeding sentences, I would replace "recommended" in He also recommended that Mid-Florida be ... with "suggested".
  • ... the FCC filed a report with the Court of Appeals noting that the grant should be reconsidered though there was no wrongdoing by Mid-Florida officials because they were not aware of what Dial had done ... "not aware" to "unaware"?

Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator

  • ... claiming that the commission could not reverse some of the findings in the 1961 Cunningham report concerning credibility of witnesses Possible missing word "the" before "credibility".
  • ... or possibly be reopened for new applicants for the channel I would omit "be" here as extra word.
    • No. be continued, go, be reopened.
  • The suggestion of reopening the channel 9 file was taken up by the FCC's Broadcast Bureau, which urged the commission to take new applications, though commission members were said to be unenthusiastic. I would consider breaking this sentence into two for better emphasis and create a less-lengthy statement, likely at "... new applications. However, commission members ..."
  • to not be to not to be for better modifier usage?
    • leaving this here because "as to" takes precedence
  • ... the court agreed with the Broadcast Bureau and with the losing applicant that the record was stale. I would omit the second "with" as redundant.
  • In March 1965, the case was returned to the FCC for a third time, this time with orders ... "this time" may be redundant here.
  • Since there are uses of semi-colon lists in the article, I would make the bullet list here into prose passages instead of the current.
    • I am not doing this because the number of applicants is large. I do not want people to get totally lost in this list, which is really important to understand everything between 1966 and 1981.
  • Though the Murrells filed with their new company, in September, ... I would omit the first comma before "in" for better flow.
    • No, the withdrawal was in September.
  • ... the FCC designated the case for a full comparative hearing of the applicants' qualifications "applicant's" instead of "applicants'"?
    • The qualifications of ALL of the applicants.
  • ... after Orange Nine's exit, Comint had joined the consortium "had" may be redundant here.
    • It's unclear when Comint joined.

Channel 9 case in the 1970s: Minority ownership and Martin Segal

  • The initial decision was appealed ... It might be worth to note who did the appeal here.
    • Not in the source.
  • ... he had become a paraplegic to ... he had developed paraplegia? I read this sentence fully now to know it was not developed, but from an attack. "Paralyzed" might work better here though than "paraplegic". I am not sure if the latter term is used anymore.
    • Not changing as "paraplegic" is still used and it's all over the refs about Segal.
  • The ruling pertaining to minority ownership ... "on" could replace "pertaining to" here for simplicity.
    • Left it here and made it clear the FCC was eyeing one specific aspect.
  • justice Harry Blackmun I believe you capitalize "Justice" since it is a title.
  • By this time, the case was a substantial source of paper records and attorneys' fees "By this time" may be redundant here.
  • The collapse had a substantial impact on ratings for the three local stations: unaffected WESH took the lead in news ... Comma before "WESH"?
    • Reworded.

Settlement and sale to SFN

  • That October, the five companies filed the outlines of a settlement agreement between them which would see the station ... "which would" to simply "to".
    • As it wasn't yet approved.
  • ... while the United Church of Christ was reimbursed for nearly $35,000 in legal fees it might be important to note who reimbursed them for their legal fees because of the section's length. Readers might need a refresher.
  • After the settlement was approved, ... as with the above comment.
    • By the FCC, which is in the preceding sentence.
  • ... James Robinson of Comint estimated that he had fielded 30 inquiries as to purchasing the station. "as to" to "about"?
    • Reworded another way.

Cox ownership

  • ... which had been criticized for purchasing the station in the first place: ... it might be important to know who criticized them here.
  • Though Ocala and Marion County are drawn into the Orlando market, in this area WFTV's signal overlaps with WCJB-TV of Gainesville it might read better to put "in the area" at the end of the sentence.
  • The following sentence, "so as to" to simply "to".

News operation

  • Several efforts were made to improve the situation; ... might be worth to know who made efforts here. Probably the station but I am skimming.
  • Even though the newscasts were facing ratings difficulties ... "ratings" to "rating"?
    • No.

References

  • 84, has the [1] link where I am sure a page number would be.
    • I was missing a space after the URL. Oops!
  • 99, "OrlandoSentinel.com" to "Orlando Sentinel" or "The Orlando Sentinel" for consistency.
    • Done. Note: the masthead changed in the early 2000s to drop the "The", which is actually in one of the Mediaweek citations. In the 1970s and early 80s, the paper was published as the Sentinel Star after the morning and evening publications merged.
  • 128, 129, 154, & 158, retrieval dates for URL?

Additional comments or concerns

  • MOS:DUPLINKs "WESH", two instances in "News operation". "Eyewitness News" in same section.

Alrightly, in terms of skim-throughs it was pretty solid. I will complete the rest of the read-through tonight or in the morning. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • In the lead: A wide range of issues came under discussion, including what Mid-Florida knew about the ex parte contact; what preference should be given to minority ownership of broadcast stations; and the character of a lawyer who was partially paralyzed in a murder-suicide and indicted on gambling charges in the same week. I like the context, but for lead length and purpose, it should be trimmed to just the overview ideas of the station as the previous sentence would suffice. The dirty deets are examined later.
    • Disagree. This article is long enough to support that beefy lead.
  • In subsection "Permitting and construction", WORZ immediately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ... I would remove "immediately" here as not needed.
  • In "Ex parte influence scandal", I feel like "hearing examiner" should be wikilinked but I am not a law expert or conduit of that knowledge, so I am not sure where an appropriate link should be made.
    • No appropriate target.
  • For the section "Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator" first paragraph, I would specify which Court of Appeals and which Supreme Court the passage pertains to, as it could be the state's court system or federal.
    • All of these cases went to the D.C. Circuit. They are spelled out with their full names on first mention. I did add one later.
  • In subsection "Rehearing, new applicants, and interim operator", In the wake of that order, in lieu of appealing ... to In the wake of that order and in lieu of appealing ...?
  • In subsection "Channel 9 case in the 1970s: Minority ownership and Martin Segal", it might be worth noting which court again A year later, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ... this passage entails.
  • ... which at the time was 25 percent Black clarification may be needed here on what aspect 25 percent of the demographic entails. Did the population of broadcast media (in the Orlando market) consist of 25 percent of Black Americans?
    • No, the population of the city of Orlando. Added "a city" here for clarity.
  • If the passage takes a quote from a quote, double quotes per MOS:QINQ. I say this because of the "tasteless monstrosity" quote, but I cannot look at the source.
  • A new transmitting tower at Bithlo had been proposed since 1966 as a joint venture with WDBO-TV, this was activated in 1970, replacing the mast at its Orlo Vista site. Starting with "this", it should be a new sentence.
    • I intended a semicolon.
  • Same subsection, ... third-place WFTV remained in third "third-place" may be redundant here as the latter states "remained".
    • Good idea.
  • In "News operation", ... in April 1997.[133] under a news share ... Capitalization here?
    • Removed the stray sentence fragment
  • In "Technical information", ... WFTV was the first Orlando station to broadcast a digital signal, beginning in April 2001,[151] WFTV ended programming ... Might be an instance where WFTV should be the start of another sentence. If so, punctuation here.
    • Oops.
  • For note B. Shouldn't notes have a reliable source cited even for an explanation of statements unless otherwise linked to another article for context?
    • Added

Alright, the full-read through was also good. I want to re-read the court case history a bit again. The former half looked fantastic and on point. The latter half I might suggest some trimming. Other than that, the content was informational and insightful. I will do spotchecks as well soon. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 17:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Spot check: ... promising a "vigorous expression of its qualifications" in the FCC proceedings. The article is quoted as "vigorous presentation of its qualifications".
  • Spot check: ... also hired some of the station's most recognizable personalities in the decades that followed, including anchors Bob Opsahl and Vanessa Echols I can confirm Opsahl from its source but not Echols. Opsahl does state he was hired by him explicitly while Echols only praised Bob for is encouragement and leadership.

@ Sammi Brie: Besides the above-noted spot check, good, good. Fixes good, and explanations of rejection are good per reason and policy/guideline. So far, I would make sure to use double quotes where needed, possibly using {{" '}} and/or {{' "}} temps for quotes within a quote; as there are several instances in the prose. Spotchecks were mostly good. Otherwise, I think the latter section was good. I do not think you could reduce it much further without key parts missing for context. After these spot checks are changed, I think we are good to pass! :) Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Adog Everything handled. Moved Echols out of that space which was incorrect. First one was a typo. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 00:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Well written + verifability

The article is well written with suggestions taken care of. Sammi Brie is on top of things as always. The manual of style is followed for TV stations. The reference layout is looking good with only minor fixes to be had. The article cites from a variety of reliable sources, no doubts there. Besides a few spot checks, there were no major or outstanding issues in the original research. Earwig looks good here against plagiarism/copyright/close paraphrasing. I would change the statement "operate under the name Terrier Media", if at all, not a major issue. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad in scope covering many aspects of the TV station's inception and ownership dealings. The article is well versed in its focus, there is attention to lots of detail here that is necessary for ongoing paragraphs. In terms of neutrality, as is the case with any type of political/court cases, are usually iffy. However, I think the editor here did a very well good job of balancing views. I think the arguments were well presented, and everyone (in the past) got a voice here, and are exceptional for due weight. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 23:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Image + stability

The one image is good. Nothing much or more to say, it is the logo. The article is stable, no active or ongoing edit conflicts. Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (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

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) 00:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/WFTV; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: I don't see any problems here; the article is new enough based on its recent GA promotion, is certainly long enough, well-sourced, neutral, and no outstanding plagiarism to speak of. The hook is also cited and interesting (at least to me) and a QPQ is given. AGF on any paywalled information. Link20XX ( talk) 02:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:WFTV&oldid=1202689714"