# Talk:WTIC-TV

Image:Wtic open.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 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wtic tv fox 61.gif 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) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wtic tv.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) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At last a morning News show without the Barbie/Ken--Romper Room effect!
Keep Jeff and Joy together Forever. Now I can watch,learn,be entertain,ect. for 3 Hours instead of 3 Minutes.

          Peter H Burke  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.243.225 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 

Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. This type of material does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in policies and guidelines. These types of unreferenced lists are excluded because:

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. A concerted effort has been going on for several years now to revise television station articles to reflect this consensus. thanks 74.14.24.50 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the staff and former staff that is/was not notable. In order for lists of people be included, they must meet the criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. This isn't the first station article this has been discussed on, and articles have been protected to prevent these additions, or the editors in question blocked when they persistently continue to reinsert inappropriate material. If a name is included in the article in this way, it has to show that it's relevant to the subject by meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Just because a station lists its employees doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to as well, and other station articles needing similar cleanup doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be cleaned up, because whenever it's actually discussed on a station article, the end result is the same; the names that don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE are removed. Wikipedia is also not a directory.
A list of previous discussions are listed below:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Arguments_for_Excluding_.22Where_Are_They_Now.3F.22
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_10#Current_on-air_staff_list_discussion
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 9#Alumni (and current staff) Lists
As for the titles/slogans, they were all unsourced, except for one. Even that is a questionable source, as I don't see YouTube as a reliable source. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:WTIC-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 03:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

Earwig says 2.9%, just quotes and coincidental phrases.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

Almost there - just a few quibbles with grammar, links, etc. Two minor issues with citations not fully backing the claims. On hold for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
(Criteria marked  are unassessed)


### Comments
I would have a wikilink to sister station in the second sentence.
Not doing this mostly to avoid a SEAOFBLUE with all the links in the lead sentences.
Link full power to List of North American broadcast station classes#TV (unless there's a better link)
In source 2, I don't see any mention of it being a construction permit (rather than what I would naively assume to be an operating permit)
That is unquestionably an application for a construction permit, the way that the FCC worked/works. Step 1: Apply. Step 2, if you're not the only one: Comparative hearing. Step 3: the FCC gives someone a construction permit. Step 4: build the station and sign it on.
It was intended... is an unwieldy sentence and should be split into two.
Link Rattlesnake Mountain and mention its location
..one more surprise was in store... is rather colloquial.
Might be worth a sentence explaining what the change in FCC rules was.
Gets a bit technical, but I did add a source here and reword a bit.
Wikilink WTXX-TV to WCCT-TV#WTXX: independent (1982–1995)
WTIC-TV signed on... Another run-on sentence.
Wikilink Fox in its first occurrence after the lede.
Might be worth using {{inflation}} for the 1996 sale price.
Worth mentioning the pending sale of Tegna in the prose.
The Tegna sale is pretty much dead. It is intended that some standard prose will be included in articles when that sale note from the infobox is removed. However, that cannot be carried out until at least May 22 when the deal formally expires.
Might be worth a sentence or two in the prose for context if it appears on DYK before then, but otherwise it can wait.
The sentence However, it was nearly five years... is awkwardly worded - it makes it sound like the merger caused the delay, not ended it.
Mention Beth Carroll's former channel.
Cite 68 is a dead link with no archive.
Replaced with an offline source.
Since it's a single sentence, the analog-to-digital conversion might be better mentioned in the history section. Additionally, the source does not actually mention the cutoff date given in the article, nor does it specifically confirm that WTIC-TV shut down its analog signal on that day. (Also, do we know when the station started digital broadcasting?)
Turns out WTIC was a latecomer to DTV for a station of its size, so this was a good catch. I have several standard references I've used there as well.
Looks good. The new paragraph doesn't actually say that to do so is the conversion to digital - I'd recommend explicitly saying that.
I don't seen any need for access dates for Newspapers.com sources. These are images of previously-published newspapers, and the access date shouldn't be relevant.
I use a utility that generates the citation with them. While I understand your thinking, I also know that I got comments almost in the opposite sense on another GA today, so I'd rather keep them.
@Pi.1415926535: Mostly done. I've objected to a few proposed changes on specific grounds, but most have been made. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks great. Two final suggestions above, but I won't hold up GA over that. Nice work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't see this appearing on DYK too soon — I have a crush of pages that will be going there. But rest assured that this issue is on my radar to be handled a unit of analysis higher than this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


### Source spot checks
1: Looks good, supports the claim of pending sale
76: Looks good, supports the table. RabbitEars seems to be reliable based on our article.
26: Looks good, supports the cited sentence. This, as well as several other citations, have archive links only for one of multiple pages; I would recommend archiving the second pages for completeness.
65: Looks good, supports the cited sentence.
69: Looks good, supports the cited sentence.