Talk:KUVI-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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 12:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Copyvio check: only a single 1% match found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I think the phrase "to allow Buck Owens to" is acceptable per WP:LIMITED. No issues of copyvio or close paraphrasing found during source checks.

Sources

• I note the nominator's edit summary on 15 April that "hate to add FB, but it's ABOUTSELF for this instance". In this instance I agree the use of the Facebook page is OK; it supports useful info.
• All the other sources look fine. Quite of lot of use of The Bakersfield Californian as might be expected.

• Spot check on "The main reason for the acquisition was to give Univision a fallback. KABE-LP, the low-power Univision station in Bakersfield, operated on channel 39, which also was a reserved educational channel for Bakersfield, and there was talk of a station being created to use it and thereby displace KABE. Local management concluded it would hurt channel 45—renamed KUVI—if UPN were demoted to low-power more than it would help Univision by moving to the full-power signal" - no issues.
• Spot check on "Less than a year after signing on the air, in October 1989, Dorothy Owens filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization to protect the station from its creditors" - no issues.
• Spot check on " bankruptcy proceeding a "sham" devised to allow Buck Owens to take control of channel 45" - no issues
• Spot check on "The bankruptcy court approved the sale to Buck Owens on February 28, 1990." - no issues
• Spot check on "a convicted felon was found to have likely been hired by disgruntled Buck Owens to carry out the crime." - the source has that this was "believe was hired... one of the focuses of the investigation". "Likely been hired" seems supported, but I'm not sure that adding the "by disgruntled Buck Owen workers" really is.
  • Took another look, and that is a fair assessment.
• Spot check on "In 2006, when UPN merged with The WB to form The CW, KUVI affiliated with MyNetworkTV." - no issues

General comments

• Add non-breaking spaces between the numbers and the instances of "million"
  • Done. I usually avoid general formatting scripts that do this as they cause some other issues.
• At 314 words across three paragraphs, the lead is a bit long, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. However, I think it's a good summary and so keeping it as is won't be grounds for failing as a GA (WP:IAR). However, please do see if there are any details that you think could be omitted.
  • Slimmed down.
    • Looks fine; I don't think anything esential has been lost. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• "A total of six applicants filed for channel 45 in Bakersfield in 1985. The remaining five" - bit of a jump here. Do sources explain the reduction from six to five?
  • Someone dropped out after the hearing designation. That's not unusual to see in this process. A group might decide they had no shot once they heard of the other applicants or wish not to spend the time and money needed to prosecute the bid after the order.
    • I was going to suggest that if there is a specific source for this instance, it would be useful to add in something like "x dropped out after the hearing designation" after "Bakersfield in 1985." However, looking at "In Contest". Broadcasting. October 27, 1986, it doesn't seem to confirm that there were originally six.
      • Because, somehow, I failed to cite the hearing designation order. The sixth applicant, Gamez Communications LP, had an issue placed against it at hearing. No wonder it dropped. This has been fixed, BennyOnTheLoose, and it should be ready to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• "reimbursed a total of $642,500" - do sources tell us whether this a a full reimbursement, or what kind of percentage it was?
  • Settlement arrangements were for reimbursement for the costs incurred by an applicant in pursuing the permit (lawyers, engineering studies). This was actually limited by the FCC to cover "reasonable expenses". (Payments above and beyond those costs led to the loss of at least one station's license in hearing!)
• reviewer's note to self - Dorothy Owens; company as well as person? Check uses and "Dorothy" after seeing sources
  • I saw this comment and figured I'd look into it. The license was indeed in her name, personally. I have fixed this to make the only reference to "Dorothy Owens Broadcasting" reflect the call sign meaning. Comments to here: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• I think the short second para under "Univision ownership" is OK (WP:PARAGRAPH/MOS:PARA); however, consider expanding "The WB" and "The CW" (e.g. to include "Network")
  • A good idea usually, but the networks are never referred to as such by high-quality sources. ("CW Network" has crept in in recent years, but that's not relevant to this article.)
    • OK. They are wikilinked, anyway.
• A PD image of Buck Owens is available (as used in the infobox on that article.) Is it worth adding that (or something similar) here? (No obligation. No image is better than an irrelevant one.)
  • A 1977 picture IMO is too out-of-period for this article.

• Thanks for all your work on the article and for the responses to my comments, Sammi Brie. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2024 (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.