Talk:NBC10 Boston

This article contains revamped and restructured material that was in WBTS-CD at Special:Permalink/1238251652 and WYCN-LD at Special:Permalink/1241025990. These pages now make use of labeled section transclusion. This article calls the infobox and technical information from WBTS-CD. WYCN-LD calls a large chunk of NBC10 Boston's history from this one, and WBTS-CD calls the news operation section.

Why does this page exist here?

This is an oddity for WP:TVS pages on American TV stations. Put simply, this article exists in this form, with all the fancy labeled section transclusion, so that there is one article with the continuous history of NBC(10) Boston. Because of the convoluted transmission history of this service, it was severed across two articles that minus NBC programming also have their own material. Our readers will be better-served by ignoring all rules in this unique circumstance. Plus, the content has been given a bath and brought to the same standard of my television station GAs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:18, 1 September 2024 (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:NBC10 Boston/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: NovaHyperion (talk · contribs) 06:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Experienced Reviewer: Matthew Yeager (talk · contribs) 15:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll be reviewing this for the backlog drive. I have read the article and run it through Earwig, and see no cause to quickfail this nomination, so expect further comments within the next day or two.

Procedural note: as I am a new GA reviewer and as part of the drive, a more experienced reviewer will be needed before a close. NovaHyperion^talk 06:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@NovaHyperion: Hey, excited to collaborate on a review together! We can use this page for any work-in-progress discussions. I'll do a once over on the article as well, but feel free to move forward with the review as you like! Matthew Yeager (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting article! I picked this one because I've actually seen a few of their broadcasts over the years, so thank you for this historical dive into it!

This is an odd one even for me. Because there have technically been two licenses over which this whole thing has broadcast, I figured an article at this title making use of labeled section transclusion (probably very few articles transclude and are transcluded like this one!) was necessary.

Initial spotcheck

I will begin by reviewing 6 (~10%) 10 of the sources. If no significant problems arise during this check, I'll move on to further review. If I find problems, I will check more sources.

Numbers taken from this revision, picked with RNG.

• 4 - Y verifies that NBC worked with ZGS for WNEU and that ZGS owned WTMU-LP
• 6 - Y describes NBC/Comcast merger
• 18 - Y verifies the "4 million" figure (WP:CALC)
• 30 - Y verifies the FCC approval
• 34 - Y verifies the leasing of WMFP
• 36 - ? verifies the receipt of an application, but as far as I can see says the applicant was Rogers Communications, not Bell. This is getting a little into the legal weeds for me though, so if I've misunderstood please let me know.
  • Subject: Bell Canada, Addition to the list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution This is a confusing page. Rogers intervened in (supported) the application. The Rogers intervention, which can be downloaded from that page, makes it equally clear what happened: Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) is writing this letter to support Bell Canada’s (Bell) application to add WBTS-TV Boston to the List of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution in Canada (the List). As Bell noted in its application, on January 1, 2017 WBTS-TV will take over the NBC affiliation for Boston, replacing the previous NBC affiliate WHDH-TV, which is currently on the List. Approval of this application will ensure that broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) that currently distribute WHDH-TV Boston as part of a set of U.S. 4+1 stations, pursuant to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations or a condition of licence, will have authority to continue to distribute an NBC-affiliated station from Boston when WBTS-TV becomes the NBC affiliate. Rogers also supports Bell’s request that this application be expedited. Doing so will help ensure that impacted Canadian BDU customers are not negatively affected by this change and can continue to have access to an NBC affiliate from Boston with no interruption. I have found a link that is a bit better and am using it.
    • Alright, works for me! -NH
• 47 - Y verifies date of sale
• 51 - Y with source 50, verifies a call sign change on that date
• 57 - Y with 58, verifies additional staff and equipment
• 58 - Y see above

Note: FCC links currently appear a touch broken (all leading to a suspension of funding notice). This is outside the scope of the GA criteria and the archived links do work, but making a note of it here.

• Looks like these are links from CDBS, an FCC database closed January 2, 2025. CDBS is called 7 times! I've marked them as dead. Not good on the FCC, which hasn't fixed where these links go since when they pointed many databases to that page during last year's shutdown.
  • Great, thanks! -NH

Criteria 4-6

Images:

• The article contains 4 images, all of which are tagged with appropriate licenses. Images are relevant.
• I see that the image in the infobox does not have a caption, and the code of the page is not enlightening to me as to how that infobox is generated. I think this image may be sufficiently self-explanatory per WP:CAP, but noting this if a caption may be desirable.
  • This article makes heavy, heavy use of labeled section transclusion and does so because of the way I've structured talking about NBC10 Boston vis-a-vis broadcast licenses. The infobox itself is in WBTS-CD, which also contains information about the license's pre-NBC history that is for a few reasons less germane than usual to talking about NBC10 Boston. (This page transcludes the infobox in WBTS-CD and a table from WGBX-TV and in turn has a long labeled section transcluded into WYCN-LD.)

Stability:

• No concerns, no signs of edit-warring or content disputes in the history or on the talk page.

Neutrality:

• No concerns, statements from people are attributed and relevant and the overall article does not present facts in an editorial manner.

Criteria 3 (broad)

Comparing to other TV station GAs, this seems to have a similar level of detail and set of subtopics. The article covers the history of the station from its inception to about the present day. While this isn't the easiest topic to search for, I did not find any major recent updates that are not included in the article, or older details that are not included here.

Criteria 2 (verifiable)

See spot-check above. Earwig indicated low likelihood of violation, picking up on quotes and general expressions. As I read, I checked some additional sources and did not find CLOP or any failures of verification.

Criteria 1 (well-written)

I have no broad concerns about the prose; the article is clear and concise and I did not pick up on any spelling or grammar issues. I have included some suggestions below, mostly things I believe may benefit readers who are not familiar with TV history (as I am not). If the nominator or experienced reviewer feel I am overstepping or going too in depth, feel free to disregard.

Fiction and list incorporation: Y not relevant to this article.

Layout: Y seems to be in order.

Words to watch: Y I did not find any language in this article I feel falls under this (but I wouldn't mind if @Matthew Yeager could give a second opinion here).

B The News Operation section contains assessments across a few voices from the source. When I come across phrases like "not innovative" I try to attribute it directly to avoid confusion about whether the editor is using synthesis or not. I suggest (not a request for GAN) moving the voice to the journalist, which also gets rid of an issue with wondering those early reviewers are:

Early reviews found the news effort comparable with Boston's established stations, but noted the style was more in line with traditional network affiliates than the flashy approach characteristic of WHDH. "So NBC Boston isn't an innovator," wrote Shirley Leung in the Boston Globe, citing former news directors and journalism professors.

@Sammi Brie: Up to you, and it looks like there are five sources pulling from Leung's work, so it could be meaningful to mention them directly. Matthew Yeager (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead: Y presents a concise overview of the rest of the article.

In the lead, there are a few areas that get deep into the details of the history. I would push for reducing those two middle paragraphs to something like:

NBC Boston began broadcasting on January 1, 2017, after corporate parent NBCUniversal declined to renew its long-standing affiliation with WHDH (channel 7), choosing instead to launch its own owned-and-operated station. The station was rebranded as NBC10 Boston in 2018, reflecting its cable channel number, and has generally struggled in local news ratings since its launch.

@Sammi Brie: The acquisition details are well covered in the History section below, how do you feel about reducing the lead summary? Matthew Yeager (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I decided to try slimming the lead, not as radically as you have, and I also made some changes similar to what you suggested in re: Leung, @Matthew Yeager. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Creation

• Worth wikilinking simulcast?
• Worth wikilinking right of first refusal?
  • Definitely
• NBC Owned Television Stations - Is this a distinct entity from NBC/NBCUniversal? It's capitalized as such but reads as a phrase.
  • Yes, it's a company division. Linked.
• as well as Federal Communications Commission (FCC)–imposed conditions - It feels a little odd to have the parenthetical before the hyphen, maybe rephrase to as well as conditions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?
  • Reworded this way.
• On March 10, 2016, Sunbeam Television sued Comcast in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing that moving NBC to WNEU would violate antitrust law by strengthening its near-monopoly position in the market as well as Federal Communications Commission (FCC)–imposed conditions on Comcast's acquisition of NBC, as the company had agreed not to reduce over-the-air coverage of NBC or use its cable holdings to influence affiliation negotiations - This also reads as quite a long sentence, could be split into two.
  • Split.

Launch

• Worth wikilinking over-the-air (whichever target is most appropriate)?
  • Probably not.
• The station was rebranded as NBC10 Boston at the start of 2018, emphasizing its cable channel - This isn't entirely clear to me. Does the emphasis come from the addition of "10"? I think The station was rebranded as NBC10 Boston at the start of 2018, emphasizing its cable channel number would be easier to parse if so.
  • Yes.

Another signal switch

• Is "signal switch" a term of art here? The core of this section seems to be about call signs changing hands and swapping with each other, would Further signal switches or Transition to new signal be a more appropriate header for this section?
  • Let me try and summarize this one. Once upon a time, every TV station license broadcast on its own channel, even low-power stations. So NBC Boston was available from its own license and simulcast on several others. When the incentive auction was held in 2017, the idea of channel sharing was introduced, whereby a broadcast license may need to use someone else's channel to broadcast. In this case, the "low-power" license was now being broadcast by a high-power station, WGBX-TV. The change allowed NBC to climb onto a conventional Boston transmitter facility. There was a change in signal here.

Alright, that makes more sense. I won't belabor it, this is fine -NH

• Worth wikilinking "sold its spectrum" to spectrum auction? If not here, perhaps in the lead.
  • Not in the lead because the link target I'd have used is actually already linked: 2016 United States wireless spectrum auction#Broadcast incentive auction.
    • Fair enough -NH

News operation

• A year after the switch and launch, NBC10 Boston and WHDH had opposite ratings performances - Opposite to what? Their ratings the year before? The paragraph prior gives me the impression the reception to NBC10 Boston was lukewarm to begin with.
  • Opposite to each other. Worded.

Lead

• the original WBTS-LD then became WYCN-LD and was moved to Providence, Rhode Island, as a Telemundo station. - Is this important enough for the lead? It seems rather tangential.
  • Normally, I'd say yes, but also whoa this station has a confusing license history and I feel like keeping the link up there in the lead section when that was the actual license at the outset is necessary.
• It has generally struggled in local news ratings since its debut. - "in local news ratings" reads oddly; would ... with [low] local news ratings or ... in local news rankings be equivalent statements that would flow better?
  • Changed to option 1.

As I said, I have no major concerns about the quality of the article or the prose. If you feel any of my concerns are over-reaching or unfair (or due to lack of familiarity with the topic area!) please feel free to push back. NovaHyperion^talk 07:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@NovaHyperion @Matthew Yeager All changes made. Awaiting final approval. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for such a through review, and thoughtful consideration of the feedback. I don't have any further comments/concerns. @NovaHyperion: I leave it to you to close out this review. Feel free to add me to any other reviews you start for the backlog-drive -- it was a pleasure! Matthew Yeager (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Great! I've made a few notes above to leave a record that I have read and understood your comments here, and I have no outstanding concerns that would prevent promotion. Thanks @Sammi Brie for the interesting article and @Matthew Yeager for your helpful review of my review :) Happy to close this as a pass, will do so shortly. NovaHyperion^talk 01:21, 3 June 2026 (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.