Talk:KASA-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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 16:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I anticipate completing my review of this article by the end of the weekend at the latest. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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:

   All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

   All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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:

   No concerns with the references format. Pretty standard. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

   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:

   Sourcing mostly comes from the FCC and area newspapers, both reliable sources. Can you explain how rabbitears is a reliable source? It appears self-published to me but I am not an expert in radio/TV. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

   RabbitEars is generally considered a reliable source for the subchannel information on TV station pages—it is used in pretty much every page about an operational TV station in the United States! It has multiple editors, one of whom works at the FCC (more info). Fairly often, the information is backed up by analyses of the transport streams of the stations themselves.

   Since you're not using it for anything I'd consider controversial, I find your explanation satisfactory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is cited, and spotchecks passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing on Earwig, and my spotcheks did not find any issues with copying. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I am satisfied this article meets the GA standards for comprehensiveness. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

   Article consistently follows summary style - if anything, a few areas could be expanded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Having read through the article, I don't see any issues. Opinions are attributed and everything written in Wikipedia's voice maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   Looks good to me. Not much editing recently, and no issues with edit wars or such. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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:

   One fair use logo, properly licensed. I do note there's a tag indicating it could possibly be a free file by being below the threshold of originality, but that's not enough of a concern for me to mark this criterion as not met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

   No images besides the logo. If possible I would like to see at least one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

   This is a traditionally tough field for images. I do a CC search for every station I write to GA, but fairly often I come up empty. I added one of the transmitter site area.

   Okay, thanks. This isn't the first one of your nominations I've reviewed so I know images can be tough. I'm glad you were able to find one. I'm going to mark this criterion as passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After completing spotchecks, I am satisfied this article meets the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Responded to 2b (RabbitEars) and 6b (image availability), Trainsandotherthings. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  That takes care of both of the concerns I've raised so far. I will go through the prose and evaluate the remaining criteria today or tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments

• Recommend making the first sentence of the lead more concise, it is quite long. Perhaps breaking it into two sentences?
• Link the first mention of Sandia Crest in the body.
• Link the first mentions of Santa Fe and Albuquerque in the body.
• Both the New Mexico Media application and the other channel 11 bid, which became KCHF, were contested by the Albuquerque television stations for specifying the use of Sandia Crest as the transmitter site These were previously-existing television stations, right?
• The FCC approved the application The reader is not introduced to what the FCC is before the acronym shows up. It should be mentioned with its full name and linked to eliminate any confusion.
• the news programs were scrapped just three months after launch Can you elaborate a bit on the reason this happened?
• Founding investor John Pollon Meaning he was involved with New Mexico Media Co.? Unclear to me.
• You don't explain what VHF is - at minimum, link it to Very high frequency.
• After Raycom purchased the Liberty Corporation in August 2005, Raycom announced its intent to sell KASA and several other stations. To avoid saying Raycom twice, suggest "After purchasing the Liberty Corporation in August 2005, Raycom announced..."
• As KASA and KRQE were both ranked among the top four stations in the market during the November 2015 sweeps, Nexstar elected to divest one of the two stations to comply with the FCC duopoly rules; on June 30, 2016, it agreed to sell KASA-TV and associated translators to Ramar Communications, owner of Telemundo affiliate KTEL-CD (channel 15), Movies! affiliate KUPT-LD (channel 16), and MeTV affiliate KRTN-LD (channel 33), for $2.5 million. Even with the semicolon, this sentence is so long it should probably be broken up into two sentences.
• The $12.5 million deal will give NBCU Telemundo stations in 31 markets and marks the end of 23 years of Ramar's ownership of the Telemundo affiliation in the city. Shouldn't this be in past tense, not future tense, since the transaction has been completed?
• Unusually for a Spanish-language television station This part of the sentence does not appear to be supported by the source, which is an Excel spreadsheet that shows the station's translators.
• Will reassess the prose after these points are responded to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Adjusted all of those, @Trainsandotherthings. The first links/abbreviations issue is something I'm more sensitive to now than when I put this together. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've completed a basic spotcheck of a few sources. Specifically:

• Ref 35 ("NBCU Buying KASA Albuquerque For $12.5M") - supports claims in both locations it is cited (the deal happening, its price, Ramar operating the station for 23 years, and NBC intending to launch local news) and avoids copying or close paraphrasing.
• Ref 22 ("Fox could change its channel") - Supports claims where it is used as a citation (moving and upgrading of transmitter to VHF, $1 million cost, and the firing of 18 and rehiring of 10 employees), no close paraphrasing or copying.
• Ref 28 ("Belo Corp. to buy independent TV station in Phoenix") - Supports purchase of KASA-TV and a Honolulu station for $88 million, no copying or close paraphrasing concerns.
• Spotchecks passed without issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:02, 11 April 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.