Talk:WDRB

WDRB has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 9, 2024. (Reviewed version).

United States: Indiana / Kentucky / Louisville Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as High-importance).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

A fact from WDRB appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Kentucky TV station gained industry attention after it criticized the overuse of the term "breaking news"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WDRB.

Wikipedia

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Arconning (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:WDRB/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie Here is my short review, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: All handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

No issues.

History

shareholders for what would become ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV, shareholders in what would become the ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV.
- Woof, someone put a SEAOFBLUE there. Fixed.
in 1977 to the Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company (which later became the Cowles Media Company) in 1977., remove the second mention of in 1977.
Louisville athletics, I believe "athletics" should be wikilinked to Sport of athletics?
- In US parlance, "athletics" is likelier to refer to an entire sports program than to what we would call "track and field".

News operation

No issues.

Technical information

No issues.

Images

Images have proper licensing and are relevant to the article

Refs

Random ref check: 7, 15, 22, 29, 30, 34, 40, 54. All good.
Earwig seems okay.

Misc.

No ongoing edit war, focus and broad information about the topic, neutral.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron talk 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a Kentucky TV station gained industry attention after it criticized the overuse of the term "breaking news"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130608093241/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/louisville-station-stops-using-breaking-news_b92526
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George Hunter Cary

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 696 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Nice work. A minor point: I may be missing it, but I'm not seeing the word "overuse" in quotes in the article. Any particular reason why it is in quotes for the hook? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, that didn't work out, BeanieFan11. Nixed the quotes in the hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]