Talk:KATU (TV)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for forgetting about this. From the top;

Criteria 1: Well-written

Lede

I don't see any prose issues here! I'm curious why the Sinclair ownership is cited, since this is elaborated upon further in the article? This is entirely personal taste, but it might be better to put the cite into the Ownership line of the infobox, to keep superfluous cites out of the lede.

History

Very well written prose. I don't see any problems here.

News operation

Also well-written; I don't see any issues.

Technical information

Ditto, no problems here and information is presented well.

1A: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
1B: it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research

I checked a few random sources. (Why does Genealogybank own all these papers archives? Their tool is so slow and clunky.)

5 ("Seattle Company Given TV Edge". The Columbian. Vancouver, Washington. UPI) Checks out.
11 ( Murphy, Francis (September 30, 1961).) Yep, this source checks out. You could probably milk this source for a bit more information about the transmitter station.
24 ( "Consent to Transfer", FCC) Checks out, but you should probably specify this is by the FCC in the cite.
28 (Baker, Doug (December 28, 1976) Checks out, including the stranglehold quote.
61 ( "RabbitEars TV Query for KATU". RabbitEars.) Sure is a database. Everything checks out.

Every paragraph and claim is correctly cited inline. I don't see any evidence of OR or copyvio (Earwig checks out.) All sources appear reliable.

2a: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2b: reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
2c: it contains no original research; and
2d: it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Criteria 3: broad in its coverage

This presents a very good overall history of the station, but it stays free of any cruft or tangents.

3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Criteria 4: Neutral

Preserves NPOV.

Criteria 5: Stable

As far as I can see, no edit warring!

Criteria 6: Illustrated

Logo is in public domain, all three images are CC licensed. Good to go on that front; all appear useful.

6a: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
6b: media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

General review

I'm confident putting my seal of approval that this passes the Good Article criteria. Good job, and apologies again for my tardiness on the review. Generalissima (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.