Talk:KSEE/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: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is written with a clear, concise style. Sections are ordered correctly in a way that does not strain the reader. Ran readability test on the article with the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Score, and Smog Index all between a 5.4-5.7 grade level.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Reviewed words to watch, checked sections, layout is not obstructive to the reader. Lead section gives a nice overview of the article without going into too much detail.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are mostly newspapers which for the time period is not unreasonable. Was unable to find other sources that were not primary or unacceptable on Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books.
	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).	In-line citations are correctly applied to the sources. There are a few cases where a sentence doesn't have an in-line citation but it is obviously covered in the next sentence and it's in-line citation. I wouldn't change this because you would just have the same in-line citation on two or three sentences in the same paragraph which are focused on one topic.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Did not observe original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Used the copyvio tool and Google. Was unable to find evidence of plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is focused on it's topic without going out of scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does go into detail but it is not unnecessary or fluff. There is a lot of detail in sections but it's condensed and brief.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Tone and content of article does not appear to be favoring one view point or biased.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article does not have a recent history of edit warring or massive changes expect changes which were made to improve this article in 2022 and early 2023.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are two images in this article. One is released under a Creative Common license and the other is the logo for the station and has the correct tagging.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image in the article is relevant to the history of the TV station and is captioned properly.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well researched and written article, was a breeze to review. Very in-depth and accurate research for a topic that is not the easiest to find material for. I enjoyed going over all the newspaper articles and seeing how well things were cited, which is a personal favorite activity of mine. All the issues that I found were just personal things of mine but the article was written quite well so any concerns I had about in-line citations was moot. Two sources were flagged by one of my scripts but I have no idea why since the majority of the sources all came from newspapers.com so I'm assuming it's a bug in the script. All state owned sources were appropriate and were limited to the FCC, which for a TV station is appropriate. I was glad to see that all the templates at the bottom of the page were the correct ones to have.

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.