# Talk:WLVI

Image:Wlvi anchors.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wlvi new news.PNG 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wlvi tv 2007.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:NLIST 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.
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). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on WLVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:WLVI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Alas, I remember when attenna TV (as in TV stations) were still relevant. It still exists, but cable + netflix + youtube  is now the new game in town. TV and broacasting ownership has always been complicated. Now, on to the show .... the show that is your GA review ;)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Shouldn't there be a comma between "WXHR (96.9 FM)" and "applied" in the first section (WTAO-TV)?  The sentence By 1993, with competition from WFXT and WSBK for news on the horizon and no marquee sports programming, the station was lacking an identity. could flow better without the words on the horizon.  The usage of the word "but" in the sentence in the section "Return to late news" Barnd was subsequently disciplined by station management after the incident,[67] but in 2002, the station parted ways with Barnd, seeking a return to a more serious newscast. implies that he wasn't going to be fired. I would replace the usage of the word "but" with "and".  From 1985 to 1990, WLVI again became the carrier of the Boston Celtics road games. I think the term "away games" isntead of "road games" is more clear.  The site was later owned by car dealer Herb Chambers The word "bought" would make more sense.
 Done
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
There is an entire section dedicate to their newscast operations, and I don't see any mention of it in the lead. Shouldn't there be some info about it, even if it is mostly historical ("They were known for .....") You do have bits of the ownership and technical info there, which is good.
 Done Summary leads are not something this type of article is known for and have been one of the critical parts of upgrading station projects to GA.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
There is a random out of place bullet point at the end of the article. Is that supposed to be there? Or is that supposed to be an external link?
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Citations archived with web.archive.org. Citations go to known, reliable sources, such as the Boston Globe. One question I do have is regarding the shutdown date of WLVI - the FCC site says WLVI-TV NTSC CHANNEL 56 WILL SIGN-OFF AT 11:59:59 PM ON FEBRUARY 17, 2009. but the article says June. I do remember that after some stations "sign off'ed" they had that DTV transition guide video on loop until they actually shut down for good. Is the date in the article referring to when they "signed off" (so no new content) or when they shut down the signal (so white static)
The US DTV transition was delayed quite late in the game. Some stations went off on the original February date, but most closed in June. WLVI waited to June.
C. It contains no original research: 
Everything was cited. There is a statement, at the end of the article, that says for an undisclosed amount that he described as "a lot of money". but there is no citatoin following it. I think you might have already referenced the citation that says that earlier, but I would make sure that you reuse the citation for right after that sentence so that the reader knows where to find that.
 Done I found the original article that contains this, so that citation has been added.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
None that I am aware of.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
About typical for the TV station articles on here, nothing
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Yes, stays on point. I like the quotes, they add context to the article and spice it up a little.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Yes.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Yes.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
It could use some more images, even one or two could be useful. If you can't find any, that's fine, I understand unconvering all this can be difficult. I am not sure if you can use non-free images, there are some nice ones from a newspaper or something.   Wasn't this a WB station before it became CW? Maybe you could add a logo of the station when it was with WB for historical completeness.
When I do these pages, I do make a search for appropriately licensed photos. I could not find one—not surprising given that WLVI as an independent entity was subsumed before smartphones were a thing. We also don't tend to keep many former logos around: many of them would not meet TOO. I have made a DM to maybe get a photo added of the old studio building, because—believe it or not—there's been a Boston's WB sign left to decay for the last 15+ years, and it's come off so much you can see an even older "56" underneath. Hopefully that comes through, but it shouldn't be a blocker.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Tagged when appropiate.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
@Rlink2: Made some prose fixes, added one new ref, responded to another issue, and I'm even making an overture to see about an image. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rlink2: I secured rights to an image, which has been added. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: That's wonderful that you were able to source an image! Very intresting topic. The improvements here look good, and I am happy with the work you have put into this, as per usual.  The changes you have made look good to me. Promoted. Rlink2 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently during the Gannet Ownership the station was branded as Living 56 as evidenced by some YouTube videos of people recording the Ident..But there’s no reliable sources to back up the claim other than YouTube. That stinks because I accidentally made a Living 56 redirect,thinking there’s reliable sources for it. Danubeball (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)