Talk:KAUT-TV/GA1

GA Review

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

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)

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?

- - - Not particularly. Added the remaining ones. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Nothing on the talk page in 6 years
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]

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.