Talk:WXIX-TV/GA1

GA Review

Passed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:54, 29 July 2022 (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.

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

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As expected from a Sammi Brie article, it is very well researched. Sources are great, and everything is well detailed. However, I am seeing several minor problems with how information is presented which will require changes before this can pass. While all these issues are minor, they add up. Phrasings like the station made a series of news expansions so great it analyzed or statements like WXIX-TV was the number one UHF independent station in the United States and in the top ten of all independents, VHF or UHF, nationwide. need to be toned down or attributed. This shouldn't be too difficult, though.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The two uses of () for entire statements is a bit off-kilter. The station was able to successfully parlay its 10 p.m. success into mornings, adding a 6 a.m. hour in 1998, and the station's success increased... [emphasis added] should be fixed. The FCC approved the purchase by AVC forgot to say what was purchased. For the record, that bit is also a run-on sentence.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
sailed through MOS:IDIOM; Some chatter MOS:WEASEL; Lang promised MOS:SAID. That's just what I found in "Prior to launch", and there needs to be more rewrites in other places to just fix the tone issues.
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:

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:
Seeing the tribulations of other UHF television stations around the country, This should be clarified as only Lang's opinion.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
See 1b comment.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Above concerns should be addressed before this can pass. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I believe I've addressed the tonal issues and made other prose tweaks. Please let me know if there is more; I'm always listening. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I'm not seeing anything else, so I'll mark this as a pass now. Good job and congrats! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:51, 29 July 2022 (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.