Talk:Local marketing agreement/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one within the week. 23W 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very neat article; well researched. One of the few good semi-technical articles we could have on television.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
dupdet spotchecks turned up nothin'.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I cleaned up the citations quite a bit; make sure not to miss out relevant bibliographical information (authors, dates etc.)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article was expanded quite a bit over the week, but that's okay.
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific

This is a particularly long sentence. A parenthetical note that long should probably be made into a footnote instead (perhaps using {{efn}}):

§ Effects on programming: "The stations partnered through a sharing agreement may also consolidate their programming operations: local newscasts on the junior partner in the LMA, if it operated a separate news department before the LMA's formation, may be rescheduled or scaled back to prevent direct competition with newscasts airing on the station acting as the senior partner (the actual amount of news programming featured on the brokered station varies depending on how the outsourcing agreement is structured as well as how the brokered station is programmed; in the United States, it is common for a brokered station in an LMA, SSA or JSA that is affiliated with Fox, a minor network such as The CW or MyNetworkTV or is operated as an independent station – to air fewer hours of local news programming than a brokered station affiliated with a "big three" network, such as ABC, CBS or NBC, and have their newscasts air outside of common news timeslots; for example, a weekday morning newscast on the brokered station may air from 7–9 a.m. instead of 5–7 a.m. or 5–9 a.m.) ..."

The following direct quotes needs a reference after them (WP:MINREF):

§ Gannett acquisition of Belo: '... Free Press president Craig Aaron stated that "the FCC shouldn't let Gannett break the rules. Media consolidation results in fewer journalists in the newsroom and fewer opinions on the airwaves. Concentrating media outlets in the hands of just a few companies benefits only the companies themselves." ...'

§ Sinclair acquisition of Allbritton: 'In December 2013, acting upon its proposed acquisition of Allbritton Communications, FCC Video Division Chief Barbara Kreisman sent a letter demanding information from Sinclair Broadcast Group on the financial aspects of its "sidecar" operations, and warned that "in three of the markets – Charleston, Birmingham and Harrisburg – the proposed transactions would result in the elimination of the grandfathered status of certain local marketing agreements and thus cause the transactions to violate our local TV ownership rules." ...'

§ FCC limits on joint sales agreements: 'In January 2014 town hall meeting, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler disclosed that he planned to place more scrutiny on the use of LMA-style agreements and shell companies, stating that "there were a couple of references in a couple of recent decisions in which we've said that we’re going to do things differently going forward on what were called these shell corporations." ...'

'On March 12, 2014, the FCC Media Bureau released a notice that it would further analyze television station transactions that include sharing agreements, particularly those that include a purchase option that "may counter any incentive the licensee has to increase the value of the station, since the licensee may be unlikely to realize that increased value." ...'

Other than that, lookin' good. I may have more to say afterwards. 23W 08:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ViperSnake151. 23W 01:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: I see you made the edits based on my comments but can you actually respond here? It looks great, by the way. 23W 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I presume that's all fixed now, right? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Pass! If you ever consider it for FA (which would probably be a first for a topic like this) make sure to include citations to books, as there's quite a lot said about it: [1]. 23W 23:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]