Talk:KCPQ/GA1

GA Review

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: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 23:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. From a quick glance, it looks like only minor changes will be needed to get this to GA.

This is my first GA review, so outside input from more experience reviewers would be appreciated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: ~~At the end of The Clover Park Years, the citation should go after the close parenthesis.~~

WP:REFPUNC states, "Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."

In the section under Fox Enters Seattle, I recommend creating a new sub-section for the attempted acquisition of Tribune Media. It looks odd seeing the further information template there, without a subheader above it.

Done. I didn't feel it was needed, but...

Under subchannels, I would provide a date for the pending transmitter move.

Modification is pending at the FCC. We don't get dates ahead of time.

What I meant is something along the lines of, "As of October 2021, the transmitter move is pending." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The As KMO-TV/KTVW subsection is very long, it should be divided up, maybe by decade?

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A few changes recommended.
- "On January 15, 40 employees staged a walk-out, forcing the station to go off the air, complaining about not having been paid in nearly four weeks; a cashier's check paid them and led to a resumption of operations the next day, but employees remained skeptical of Blaidon's financial condition." This sentence is quite long, I'd recommend breaking it apart into two sentences.
Done
- "Bankruptcy court approved an offer from a second company" This should be changed to "A bankruptcy court" or "The bankruptcy court."
Done
- "The transmitter upgrade also attracted a high-profile name: Jim Harriott, who had been the highest-paid anchor in local TV news at KING-TV and who took a pay cut to come to channel 13 and helm public affairs programming.[47] (Harriott soon left when KIRO-TV offered him a job.)" If available, can you mention when he left, and/or how long his tenure at the station was?
It looks like he left in May 1975, but I'd argue that'd be too much detail for the sentence. Might be worth putting in KING's article though.
- "The Washington State Legislature—which KPEC-TV and KCPQ covered for the state's public television stations—approved plans to fully fund basic education at the state level, which would change channel 13 into a financial drain on the school system" Can you elaborate about why the radio station would become a financial drain? To me, it is not readily apparent why that would be the case.
Done. I added a new reference that explains a missing link here. It looks like Clover Park got federal funding for various things that the change shifted to the state. That crimped their budget even more.
- "In 1995, Kelly bought a former candy factory on Westlake Avenue along Lake Union in Seattle which would be renovated and expanded to house KCPQ's operations, marking the end of television broadcasting from the Clover Park site after more than 20 years on channel 13 and more than 35 since the founding of KPEC-TV; the move out of the South Sound and into a space more than twice the size of the prior studio was made to be closer to the bulk of market activity." This sentence is very long, I'd break it into two sentences.
Done
- "Not long after, Kelly decided to exit an increasingly consolidating television business." Should the wording here be "consolidated" instead?
Yeah, that's better.
- "The size of the Seattle market and—from 2002—its status as home to an NFC football team led Fox to covet owning a station there. By 1997, it had already made two rejected offers to buy KCPQ." These sentences don't seem to go well together. If the football team arrived in 2002, that would not explain why Fox made offers to buy the station before 1997.
I can see why you tripped up here! The Seahawks have been around since 1976, but in 2002, they moved from the AFC to the NFC. (This was a fairly big deal in this context because it increased Fox's desire to enter the Seattle market. Fox airs mostly NFC games.)
- "Fox Television Stations purchased KCPQ and KZJO as part of a $350 million deal, with Fox citing KCPQ's primary carriage of Seahawks home games as the impetus for the transaction." I am unsure that carriage is the correct word to use here. Perhaps change to coverage or broadcasting?
"Carriage" is the right word here in my estimation, since the station has no involvement in producing the telecast.
- In the first section of the history, you mention a "Haymond" twice. However, his first name is never revealed, nor who exactly he is.
Fixed! He was original KMO radio owner Carl E. Haymond.
- "The cutbacks left only Bob Corcoran, a talk show host, as KTVW's sole on-air personality." The use of "only" and "sole" in the same sentence is redundant here, I would remove one of them.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the first sentence, there are three Wikilinked terms back to back. This may be confusing, and should be rewritten to avoid violating MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked television station to retain the other links. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References look good, and are formatted properly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
No problems here. References are very well done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Everything is cited that needs to be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
A check with Earwig revealed no matches. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Thorough coverage of the entire history of the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Focused like a laser. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Maintains an objective tone throughout. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Page was rather recently semi-protected due to IP vandalism.
I will note that this could not have been foreseen when I nominated the page. A lot of effort has gone into keeping page quality up and keeping it on track for GA.
I'm sure you will keep on top of any further vandalism. As there's no substantive dispute over article content itself, I will pass it on this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both are logos, and used properly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Article is rather lacking in images. Not mandatory, but if photos are available, I'd suggest adding one or two from notable people who worked at the station at one point in time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a toughie. It's not common to have images, and I did look high and low for ones that are CC-licensed. Really wish I had one of the studios or Clover Park Technical College or something, but alas...that doesn't exist, and I'm nowhere near the places that need photos being taken. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in taking a photo of the studios, but my school just resumed classes on Wednesday, so I cannot exactly visit Seattle on a whim right now while dealing with school commitments. I know SounderBruce has taken a photo of the KING-TV studios, but I don't know if he would be interested in taking one for KCPQ. In any case, a quick look on Google Street View shows that trees line the sidewalk between the studios and the neighboring road, so if a clear image of the whole facility is required, it might be more optimal to wait for another month or so for the leaves to fall down. --SmartAn01 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that or, in the South Sound, the KBTC transmitter site in Tacoma (which was KTVW/KCPQ's until Kelly donated it as part of its package to win over people unhappy about KCPQ not being noncommercial) or the Clover Park studio building which is still there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While ideally there would be one or two photos, the lack of them is not nearly enough to detract from the rest of the article being well done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This meets all the criteria, and as such I am promoting it to GA status. Congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2021 (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.