Talk:CKMI-DT/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

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.