Jump to content

Talk:KAUT-TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

KWTV broadcasted the first OK Redhawks game in April of 1998.

"channel 43"?!

[edit]

Hi! In some sentences where it is written as "channel 43", it seems to me that the proper context would be "Channel 43". So is that an actual error that needs correcting, or is there some other aspect going on here that I'm missing? I thought I'd ask first rather than correct what looks like a typographical erroe to me if not a spelling error. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KAUT-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KAUT-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KAUT-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Ill' do this Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    So the first heading includes the years but the others dont. Any reason for this?
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Could you explain why the following sources are GA quality: Television & Cable Factbook, TVNewsCheck, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook, "TVTechnology"
    A lot of inconsistancy in weather publishers are linked.
    Are the Television & Cable Factbook and Television and Cable Factbook the same? If so consider putting them into a bibliography section and using Sfn
    Let me answer these. The books are reference volumes that were published for decades by reputable publishers (Warren Communications News for the Television & Cable Factbook—and yes, it should be &—and Broadcasting & Cable magazine), respectively, and contain summary information about broadcast TV stations. They are not linked because the primary copies available are in a shadow library. I don't think an sfn is merited for the volume of usage of these sources. TVTechnology is a sister to Broadcasting & Cable and owned by Future plc. TVNewsCheck is a major news site and aggregator for broadcast TV industry coverage; I wrote about its source credentials previously at Talk:KLKN/GA1.
    I removed one extraneous publisher and left the remainder (so that FCC isn't needlessly italicized in sources), and FCC is only linked on first mention. This page is unusual among my GANs in that it is what I call a "sheared sheep". It was written by Tvtonightokc, who does include publishers in their references. Their pages read very dense and bulky, and to improve them to GA standard means a significant reduction in readable prose size for much the same material. (KAUT is a very good example, as it lost 61% of its readable prose in being improved.) So the reference section hygiene—really only an issue at FAC, not GAN—is a little different in these pages that already contained many of the same references I would have used writing them de novo. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Nothing on the talk page in 6 years
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    While the top image has suitable alt text the others don't.
        • Fixed — I had not added alt text since I wasn't sure about keeping the images. I decided to ditch the two that were ads and didn't make much of an impression at small sizes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sammi Brie: Didnt identify any other problems passed. Congragulations. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked sources 10, 20, 30, 41, 50, 61, 71, 80, 90, 100 all good.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 JuniperChill talk 21:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 714 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KAUT-TV&oldid=1252894733"