This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
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.
Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - newness, length. No concerns with tone. Earwig's detector turns up fine. The hook is cited to the newspapers.com clipping of a local newspaper. Looks good. Hook is interesting. I found myself quite lost in trying to interpret the hook for the first time -- but, was able to on subsequent attempts. If there is a way to enhance readability without diminishing impact, I would urge the nominator to consider doing so. e.g. marking "really something" in quotes. But, if the nominator wants to go with their current hook as-is, I will defer to their desire. There are minor issues with sourcing - particularly, some of the sentences in the lede are not in the body and hence are missing sources. Will require the nominator to introduce those sentences into the body and then pop a reference against those sentences. QPQ seems to be done. Passing the nomination back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: Added quotes to "really something". I've also reworded some of the info and reworked some citation locations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the presence of a VHF television station, WMAZ-TV, severely hurt its economic viability at a time when UHF stations could not be received in all homes": same clipping as citation
Pinging Ktin again to quote the exact location in that clipping. Saggese, who spent 26 years in radio and television, agreed. "What killed Channel 47 was the competition. When our salesmen went to a potential sponsor, they were asked what percent of the viewing market had been converted to UHF. When the salesman answered 60 percent, the sponsor replied that WMAZ could boast 100 percent of the market since no sets had to be converted to receive Channel 13."Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1955, it was sold and closed after just a month under new ownership in evident financial distress": second-to-last paragraph
.svg){kind=small}
Article meets eligibility criteria - newness, length. No concerns with tone. Earwig's detector turns up fine. The hook is cited to the newspapers.com clipping of a local newspaper. Looks good. Hook is interesting. I found myself quite lost in trying to interpret the hook for the first time -- but, was able to on subsequent attempts. If there is a way to enhance readability without diminishing impact, I would urge the nominator to consider doing so. e.g. marking "really something" in quotes. But, if the nominator wants to go with their current hook as-is, I will defer to their desire. There are minor issues with sourcing - particularly, some of the sentences in the lede are not in the body and hence are missing sources. Will require the nominator to introduce those sentences into the body and then pop a reference against those sentences. QPQ seems to be done. Passing the nomination back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)