Talk:KTSF/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will go section by section.

All good

~~Affliations: No comma?~~
- The length of the words (and unfortunately the double link) results in it seeming like two affiliations. It isn't.

~~Is RabbitEars reliable?~~
- See Talk:KLKN/GA1
Former ref looks incomplete, mention RabbitEars? Done
- probably publisher/work/ebsite= RabbitEars?
  - Oh, the KDTV ref was missing metadata. Did not see that.
~~Is there a need to mention KDTV-DT?~~
- Very much so! They literally share a transmitter.
  - Not channels or ownership or anything relevant to subchannels though?
    - I'm not going to get into this debate because that's a topic-level thing. There isn't anything else shared, but the way I had things (which might have quelled your concern) was unfortunately replaced because a user took an idea I had for more closely related pairs and brought it here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, I checked; revoking remark (not that it matters, but the other way is better than the current one)

but its assets were purchased in late 1963.: by who and why if they were trying to set something up themself? Done
- They drop off the radar. Their Dallas station never went forward, either. I think their business model would have been an utter dud (I wrote a bit more about it in KMPX).
  - So the assets were purchased back or reverted or something? Or did Television SF bought them?
    - Completely unrelated. There's no connection at all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mention that, bcs it reads like TV SF purchased them
        Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Television San Francisco, ... granted on November 29, 1966.[6]: Would read better if reworded into a single sentence Done
- Shuffled the word order here. Comments to here: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the show, Your Business World: was it the only thing broadcasted, bcs it reads like that Done
- During the day, yes. All the coverage makes it seem like it was one longform program. This makes sense given the genre (business news throughout the trading day). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to split 2 paragraphs into 4, feel free to revert if you like

~~are these the only significant things that happened between 1993-present? expand if there is anything~~
- I didn't see anything when I did the initial research, frankly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good

~~Can one or two more images be added?~~
- @DoctorWhoFan91: When I do TV stations, I also do a check in Commons and Flickr to see if there are any free-use images. The only one I found was File:Maya Gilliss-Chapman at KTSF.jpg, which is more of a headshot of the guest and not an image showing station activity. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking every 8th ref in general

Ref-1: 37511 KTSF
Ref-9: permit has been held for years ... lies fallow
Ref-17: Fuji Television ... reappeared on local airwaves ... KTSF-TV Channel 26.
Ref-25: event transpired on August 12
Ref-33: hodge-podge combination
Ref-42: moved ... dropped former station
Ref-49: advertising and viewing boycott
Ref-57: ... has died. She was 93.
Ref-64: KTSF 37511 San Francisco ... Jun 26 2009
Ref-74: TV MASS CATHOLIC MASS
Ref-80: 240,000 viewers an evening

Only some minor issues from what I have checked, and similarly for the part I have only skimmed yet. Will add the rest of the remarks later? Well-written article Sammi Brie, should pass easily. Keep up the good work!. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more remarks, Sammi Brie. A few headings are left, which I'll review tomorrow. A very well-written article, it seems easily be on the way to passing to GA. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, review done, just one minor issue remains, plus I need to do a deeper spot check, which I will do in a few hours. Going to pass the article after it's done. Well done! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, did the spot-check, and everything checks out. Passing to GA, very well-written, informative and focused article. Congratulations, very well done, keep up the good work! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 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): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·