Talk:WHRO-TV/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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Good luck to the editors! Arconning (talk · contribs)

• Quick comment: The unlinked Virginian-Pilot refs can probably be clipped now as that paper is in GenealogyBank. Much like with the Spartanburg references in WLOS, they were in an unlinkable NewsBank database. They are 45, 47, 51–56. Let me know if you want this done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yep, much better if they're linked so I can get take a good look at them :)) Arconning (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @Arconning: This has been done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
      • @Arconning: Responded to concerns and made several changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

        @Sammi Brie Hi Sammi! I just made some final comments on some things that didn't make through at the first part of the review, they will be found in the History section. Hope everything will be addressed. Arconning (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

        • @Arconning: All fixed. I made a slightly different change to the second one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lede

• it is sister to three public radio stations:, it is a sister station, for clarification.
  • Reworded altogether
• the station's educational programming earned it a Peabody Award for 1972., in instead of for unless 1972 stands for something?
  • The award was given in 1973 for material in 1972. This is common with awards of this kind in media.

History

• announced in December 1960 it would cease carrying educational programming beginning in June 1961., add that after 1960.
  • Done
• That March, an association of local, maybe specify which year since the previous sentence references December 1960 and June 1961 which would be ambiguous since March comes before both months.
  • Done
• channel 15 had broadcast and channel 15 instead of 21., change to channel 15 had been broadcasted from. Also specify what was the use of channel 21, since it could possibly be confusing for readers.
  • Reworded. 21 is mentioned because, as is already stated, Channel 21 was the originally allotted channel to Norfolk for educational use
• A studio of its own, Growing beyond education, maybe change to something formal but it's fine the way it is for me :)
  • Going to leave these alone since I can't think of better formal wording.
• Norfolk shouldered most of the cost,, change shouldered to something more formal.
  • Done
• general manager of 1975, in 1975?
  • Yup.
• burned through the cushion of cash, Widoff's belt-tightening as necessary., make more formal.
  • Disagree — I think both are perfectly fine and would be acceptable in, say, a newspaper article. I reworded one partly to improve.
• which cut funding 8 percent and 15 percent in consecutive years., add by before 8 percent.
• described it as in "internal collapse", change in to an.
• insecurity";, change to a period instead of a semicolon (insecurity." The CPB...).
  • All done or changed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Funding

• Possibly merge with Cutbacks section in History and rename to Cutbacks and funding as the section is small, expand information and keep as is, or integrate into the History section by itself.
  • Disagree — in articles I've improved on public stations, this is a standard, if short, section. It's designed to generally have current-year information, so a merger is not advisable. It was brought up to me that this kind of material is kind of a missing link for public TV station articles.

Technical information

• Formatted well, no issues.

Refs

• Sources used are appropriate and reliable, pass.
• Formatted well.

Spotchecks

• Manual check and earwig show nothing. Pass.
• Will do a final spotcheck^^
  • Final spotcheck done, passing!

Images

• No other images? :( But the singular one for the logo has the proper license so that's alright! :) Would be better if there's more images though.
  • I wish, too. There are just some topics I write about that have no free-license images available. Even some longer articles (e.g. WFTV, WPGH-TV).

Misc.

• No ongoing edit war, focused and broad information on the topic, neutrality is established. Pass.

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

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.