Talk:WSJV

Subchannels

So I know I am just a random user (no username), but I check these pages often as I live in the South Bend area. It has been a bit of a frustration to see subchannels added to these pages that do not actually exist on the broadcast. They are all tagged with "(Soon)" as if to indicate that they are coming to the station soon but none of them cite a source to credit that as truth and some of the edits have been there for months. This page, WSJV, seems to be the worst culprit. But WNIT also seems to have become a victim as well. I'm not one to name names, but looking at the edit history it all seems to have been added by the same user. Are subchannels exempt from needing a source cited? Because I would think they should be just as accurate as the rest of the article.

I wasn't sure where to bring this up, but figured the Talk page was probably an OK place to do it. If it is not then an Admin may feel free to delete this. 167.239.221.102 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here we go! Sorry about the delay.

• "At the time, Quincy...since that time, WSJV..." reads a little jarringly. There's the repetition of the "time" phrasing, and also the resolution of the proposed sale isn't really clear from the first clause, so going into the second is a little confusing.
• "To accomplish this required..." you could ditch "to accomplish" and still have the same meaning
• " 6 to 8 a.m., it moved to 7–9 a.m" both should be hyphenated, I think, it looks odd to have two different styles so close
• "to the libraries of Indiana University Bloomington, specifically its Moving Image Archive" you could simplify this to "to the Moving Image Archive at the Indiana University Bloomington"

That's it for prose. No concerns about tone or CV. Single image is appropriately licensed. Spot checks of available sources turned up no issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Tweaked these items. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1995, viewers of an Indiana TV station's newscast could send emails to the presenter live on air? Source: https://www.proquest.com/docview/216299465
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abdoulkader Waberi Askar

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 725 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough. Hook fact is interesting (this is back when the internet was seen as a passing fad!) and cited (and unsurprisingly uses e-mail rather than today's email). Earwig shows no issues. Good to go! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)