Talk:WLIO

Merge WBOH with WLIO

Whereas in the past, WBOH operated semi-independently, what's left of it (West Central Ohio CW) is a digital sub-channel of WLIO. While some digital subchannels have their own articles, I do not believe that it is justified in this case. In my opinion, the WBOH article could be transformed into a subsection of the WLIO article. --AlexDW 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Virtual channel

FCC records do not show virtual channel 8 for this station, but virtual channel 35. (For WOHL-CD, they show no virtual channel.) Added "citation needed" tag to body. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Stations with similar mismatches: WOAY-TV, KVIQ, KCVU/KBVU.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Dubious virtual channels & odd branding. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply


Sorry this took a bit, but I did promise I'd hit this one up. Will give a review hopefully very soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sammi Brie:

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses no fair use files.

Lead

History

-Looks good

News operation and subchannels

-Is there any reason only two people are listed?

Overall

-Looks solid. Not much more to say, it's very well done coverage and prose wise.

Spotcheck

-Reviewed 14 random sources from the article: 48, 32, 45, 47, 16, 1, 54, 27, 33, 12, 42, 36, 35, 28. Can't check 16, 33 but assuming good faith. What is the reliability of RabbitEars? Source 28 also does not give any of the specified info on Bratton, only stating he has been arrested and associated information. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Juxlos talk 00:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 760 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Hook is complete, interesting, and cited. Article has no issues from my read. Well done. SounderBruce 21:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is it?

  • Can someone explain to me about the structure of this paragraph? It was simply, I didn't understand what was mentioned. --- "However, financial issues at WOHL and a desire for carriage on a full-power station with a larger coverage area led Fox to consider moving its affiliation to WLIO as early as late 2007".

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.