Talk:CKMI-DT

CKMI cable carriage in Montreal before Global

In the CKMI-TV-1 page, Blueboy96 inserted the claim that CKMI was carried on cable in Montreal during its CBC affiliation, a claim that is definitely false. Each time I deleted this information, Blueboy96 re-inserted this false information.

Blueboy96, how did you find out that CKMI was carried on cable in Montreal before it became Global?

SuperJSP (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CKMI-DT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708113835/http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4951353 to http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4951353

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CKMI-DT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820071700/http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=125&historyID=127 to http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=125&historyID=127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131120000609/http://digitaltv.gc.ca/eng/1298735988428/1298735988465 to http://digitaltv.gc.ca/eng/1298735988428/1298735988465
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820071700/http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=125&historyID=127 to http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php?id=125&historyID=127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I will review this article. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Citations

• Citation 14, I do not see that the station was subsidized, there is no mention of it in the article. Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Done Reworded. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Some reviewer notes

The other citations check out, and the nominator has done a very good job of citing the article without close WP:CLOP. I have spot checked many references and I checked the Earwig score. The nominator has done an excellent job of interpreting references and the prose is very accessible. The extensive use of newspapers as reliable sources is a credit to the nominator. I have rarely seen so many newspapers used in an article. I did see the use of a tweet in the article with citation 59, and Twitter is red in our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but I consider it fine because it is backed up by another reliable source.

The infobox is filled in and provides relevant information. The tables at the bottom of the article are helpful. The external links and navigation templates are all very useful and they follow our manual of style for WP:LAYOUT. The use of a quote box appears to be ok, I cannot find anything in our manual of style to say that a block-quote should be treated another way. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Notes are above

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Notes are above. I do not find any issues.

2. 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:

   The nominator expertly interprets the sources. The information is all verifiable.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   The sources are primarily newspapers and when a redlined source is used, the information is not controversial and it is backed by a secondary source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See notes above

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Well done. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The subject matter and prose is all within the range of material that belongs in the article.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I do not find evidence of POV pushing, and the article presents a fair and balanced reading of this station's history.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Prior to this review the article was last edited 2.5 months ago. So it is stable.

6. 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:

   The article has two images and both are free and clear with captions. Canada does have [1] for buildings. The logo appears to have the correct license. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The two images are appropriate and they are relevant. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Thank you for your work and dedication. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that MI-5 had trouble finding people to interview? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/99653009/english-tv-in-sea-of-french-a-challenge/ and yes, the station was called MI-5: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/106917981/tv-job-helps-her-run-a-newspaper-journa/
  • ALT1: ... that MI-5 was feared to be "slip[ping] in through the back door"? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/99716151/tell-the-crtc-cfcf-12-is-the-one-to-ke/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Age of Consent (novel)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 17:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/CKMI-DT; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: I think these hooks border on misleading. The first thoughts of your average reader would be of MI5, the British intelligence agency. Not good if they don't click the link and read the article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Festucalex: These are intended as quirky hooks. This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
    • @Sammi Brie: Too quirky, in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Drive-by comment - It's not like we've never had similar bait & switch hooks before. It would be one thing if it was phrased to be disparaging to MI5 somehow, but it's not. I think it's fun. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

New enough, long enough. Hook short enough, interesting, and sourced (as is every paragraph); my first thought at seeing MI-5 was 'why has this got a dash in it, possibly not the intelligence agency'. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Good to go.--Launchballer 06:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)