Talk:KTVK/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Sammi Brie, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sammi Brie, other than a couple issues, the nomination is pretty much a good article. I'll promote it once the issues are fixed, good work on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 3 links to the news piece of ref 11.
• LLC probably doesn't need to be wikilinked.
• Ref 56 should be marked as dead instead of live.
• External links in the rebroadcasters list should be removed. The list itself should be cited to either a single reference or removed altogether.

• Tayi Arajakate, I have fixed 1 through 3. #4 is trickier because the US FCC has not updated a list (Input Channels for TV Translator Stations) that could be cited on this topic since 2017, and it is majorly out of date due to a repack of television stations (2016 United States wireless spectrum auction) and the final shut-off of low-power analog TV stations in the US (this week). There is no list to cite these days. I actually emailed the FCC on having that list updated last week and have not heard back. It's generally been the standard in this type of page to have the links to the FCC record (generated by a template, {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}) in this section of the article. It could be worse; this used to be a {{hidden}} box, which is now generally verboten for accessibility reasons. I get the EL issue but, right now, there is no alternative until the FCC updates that list, and that is calling for a larger change in our topic area. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sammi Brie, in that case maybe those external links can instead be bundled together in a reference? They could probably remain as a primary source for the time being. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, I've done that for now. I may open a discussion about this to figure out what the right course of action is. This topic area is notorious for sometimes being out of line with encyclopedic policies and I've been strenuously working to get it there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension of the article is good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Article is compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has list of references with inline citations for all lines in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are adequately reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article provides broad coverage to all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic without unncessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No edit warring or content disputes found.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is adequately illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Image used is tagged with its appropriate copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use is suitable.	Pass