Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KNXV-TV/archive1

KNXV-TV[edit]

Featured article candidates/KNXV-TV/archive1

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pound-for-pound, the most interesting TV station in Phoenix is probably the one with an N for "News" in its call sign yet which mocked local newscasts with the "Bluebird of Happinews" in its early years. After years of funding-related delays, KNXV turned up in 1979 as the first new English-language TV station in Phoenix in 12 years. It got built mostly as a conduit for ON TV programming (and is part of the ON TV Good Topic), but cable became widespread enough by 1983 that it was one of the first markets where the company withdrew. After being sold to Scripps-Howard Broadcasting and affiliating with Fox in 1986, KNXV found its stride and eclipsed heritage KPHO-TV, a station that failed to get with the times, as the leading independent station in the market. Plans for a newscast became reality in 1994—in time to be scrambled by a huge affiliation realignment which sent ABC to 15. In spite of substantial early promise and a style distinguishing it from its four competitors, News 15 scuffled hard after changes in management and talent. More recently, the station has expanded its news output and improved its quality, as demonstrated by two Peabody Awards in consecutive years. Thank you to Lee Vilenski (GA reviewer in March 2022) and Valley of the Sun Retail for providing the studio image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:KNXV-TV_studios_2023.jpg is lacking evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria A user put that image (and some others I want to use in articles) up in a Discord server. I asked him to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 for Wikipedia purposes; he agreed and, on the advice of User:Snowmanonahoe in WP:DISCORD, edited the messages to add "Images released under CC-BY-SA 4.0". He did not want to create an account and wanted me to upload the image. Is there additional documentation, short of a VRT ticket, that would help? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image available elsewhere online? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria It is not. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. To my knowledge VRT doesn't generally accept secondhand permissions, particularly if we can't verify that that user owns the photo copyright, so we might be stuck here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria The user in question *did* take the photo—that I know. Do you think I need to have him go through the VRT process? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably be the best option. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of overkill, especially because the Discord server is public (I could link an invite if you wanted and then point you to the message in question), but... I'm working on it. It may not happen until tonight because the creator I think works during the day. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe the claim is false. Sammi Brie could've just uploaded the photos as own work. This is the same thing. A VRT ticket doesn't make any sense here because this person has no verifiable online contact information. The ticket would be verifying the identity of a random guy whom we don't even know is the actual photographer because his photos are not publicly available. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, if we go by that logic we're back to being stuck. (And uploading stuff as own work which is not own work is not a good workaround for that). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to convey by that point is that when someone makes a claim of own work, it is no less dubious than the claim Sammi Brie is making--that she was given permission to upload an otherwise unpublished work by a personal friend. The copyright status of the photo is not 'stuck' anywhere, because there is nowhere Sammi Brie could've gotten the photo besides the photographer, because the photo is not published. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting Sammi's good faith here, but as far as I'm aware every time this situation has come up on Commons, the response has always been to send them through VRT, just because having a copy of a photo is not evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is significant doubt of the file's free status, you can open a DR. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got him to generate a release for that image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts[edit]

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZKang123[edit]

This looks well-written on first glance. Let me see through any nitpicks.

~~Curious, what does KNXV stand for?~~ Never mind, later explained in history.
"In February 1975, pioneering UHF broadcaster Edwin Cooperstein, who had started New Jersey's WNJU-TV in the 1960s before moving to Phoenix, announced that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had granted a construction permit to his company, New Television Corp., to build a television station in Phoenix on UHF channel 15."
- I find this sentence a bit long. I understand it's also to add more context of who Edwin Cooperstein and how he is a "pioneering UHF broadcaster", but I felt the "who had..." clause could be a footnote or something to focus more on him building a television station, which I find more relevant to the article. Maybe consider preparing a redlink for Edwin Cooperstein.
"Plans were soon delayed by the inability to secure financing" – "Plans were soon delayed due to the inability to secure financing"
" the station still had not been built." – "the station was still unbuilt."
"funding problems continued to stand in the way of getting KNXV-TV on the air, leading" – I find this clause unnecessary given it's clear there's still funding issues before. Might shorten the sentence to: "In 1977, Cooperstein and his investors sold a majority of New Television Corp..."
No wikilink for Arlington Corporation?
"In late 1978, firm plans were made for a 1979 launch of the station." – I think it could be rewritten as "In late 1978, the station was planned to launch in the following year."
"as a commercial independent, airing first-run and off-network syndicated shows and children's programs." – I did a little trip reading this (thinking it's some run-on) before understanding "independent" as a noun.
- The fact independent station wasn't linked here at its first mention contributes to this. "Independent" as a noun is common in articles on this, but never on first mention!
"but signs of trouble for the business were emerging rapidly." – this clause by its own here isn't clear in stating what signs of trouble there were for the company.
";[15] however," – Not necessary to have a semicolon here given "however" is a connector signpost for a contrasting statement. Plus, the next statement can stand as its own sentence.
"in part because" – "partly because"
"dipped below 25,000, a drop of" – could use an en dash or emdash here, whichever you prefer
"and those syndicated shows" – remove "those"
", the established independent in Phoenix," – I understand the need for clarity for what KPHO-TV is but I think the wikilink to the article would give context. Otherwise, you can do a footnote.
- Disagree. A modern reader might not realize KPHO-TV was an indie (Big Realignment '94 made them the CBS affiliate). This clause establishes "OK, 15 was competing with 5".
", potential buyers appeared for channel 15" – something about "appeared" don't seem encyclopedic to me.
Might also add modern value dollars for $22 million and $30 million
"and accepted a" – "but accepted a". I think "but" is more suitable
", with the sale being finalized in 1985" – "The sale was finalized..."
"One new program on channel 15 in its first months with Scripps had much to do with its new owner." – something about this statement doesn't seem encyclopedic. I understand it is to tie the relationship of the new programme. Maybe like "is related to its new owner?"
" purchase more recent sitcoms" – I think at this time they aren't as "recent". Maybe like "purchase sitcoms that were new at the time?" Might suggest also adding which sitcoms were purchased as examples.
- Couldn't substantiate this much, unfortunately.
For this chunk: "After KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate with the fledgling Fox network, it approached KNXV. Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986; as Fox's first and only program was The Late Show Starring Joan Rivers, KNXV remained essentially independent.", maybe I would rephrase to:
- "The expanding Fox network approached KNXV after KPHO turned down an offer to affiliate, and Channel 15 joined Fox at the network's inception on October 9, 1986. As Fox' first and only..."
"(channel 10, which New World was in the process of acquiring from Citicasters)" – Suggest putting as a footnote instead.
- Rewritten a bit but not to a footnote.
"Just as importantly, however," – this part sounds like fluff. Remove this.
"ABC affiliates, WXYZ-TV and WEWS-TV, in these markets" – I recommend the use of dashes here.
"or else it would affiliate with CBS in those markets." – "otherwise it would affiliate with CBS"
"This was not a demand to which ABC was initially amenable." – "ABC was not initially amenable to this demand."
"For this reason" – "Hence"
"wanted to keep a station that had risen from one of ABC's weakest affiliates to one of its strongest." – something about this sentence is a bit clunky.
"swelled to 85" – "expanded to 85"
No issues for the remainder of the history section
"However, after Sullivan left the station in 1996, Michael Kronley was installed as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV: the investigative reports were discontinued, replaced by more live shots, and the station acquired a helicopter." – Suggest rewording to: "Sullivan left the station in 1996, and under Michael Kronley as station manager from Charlotte ABC affiliate WSOC-TV, the investigative reports were discontinued and replaced by more live shots, with the acquisition of a helicopter."
- Reflowed.

The rest of the article seems fine. That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Addressed most issues. One or two items I changed in a different manner, and another one or two I did not do for specific reasons. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]