Talk:KXTX-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: Geardona (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is coherent, and follows a logical pattern, Done some of the section titles might need work	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No words to watch (outside of quotes)	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Good amount, good reliability.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Spot checked sources # 2 (not sure I fully understand it, but it looks correct (numbers add up and such)); 7 (checked for copyvio as ell); 9 (no copyvio I can see, verified); 137 (technical data, if i'm reading it right it is true(I don't speak random numbers sorry)	Pass
(c) (original research)	cited, no OR	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	'ran through earwigs for good measure, but also spot checked. Only found quotes on earwigs	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers all aspects of the topic, not really missing anything (that I can think of).	Pass
(b) (focused)	No distracting side tracks.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No neutrality problems.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars/disputes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	tagged, done	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Done The images might need some work on positioning and scale	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passed after small bits of additional work.

Discussion

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.

Discussion

NOTE:This was on the Wikipedia:Discord before we decided to re-enact it here, here's a little transcript and summary, if you want the full transcript, reach out to me. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Notes/Questions round one:
Lead is a little long
In the lede "licensed to" or " licensed in"? in the first section thats a small image, is that for fair use reasons? The section names might need some workshopping.Geardona (talk to me?) 06:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This one got funky, so I'll put what happened here:

• MOS:LEAD puts the maximum length of a lead section at four paragraphs. This 4500-worder justifies it, in my opinion. We suffer, almost exclusively, from overly short leads.
• "Licensed to" is the correct verbiage in this industry.
• That first small image was moved down one level-2 header so I could bump up its upright to 1.4 from 1 without creating a high-level sandwich.
• Changed some L2 and L3 headers to be a bit more encyclopedic (notably CBN and "Doubleday giveaway").

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

After this (little more fluff)
In the next image the caption says "DFW Airport" maybe expand the acronym? --> it got linked to the airport. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Then went to

in "New studios in Fort Worth and news expansion" maybe some more inline sources, not all at the end (unless thats how the sourcing goes idk).
Also WP:CITEOVERKILL --> the section got slightly altered. Geardona (talk to me?) 07:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Then wandered to
increased the size of the images that are super horizontal and moved the one down one l2 header
Then its the spot check. Then we are  Done Geardona (talk to me?) 07:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice list for spot check

Spot checked sources

1. 2 (not sure I fully understand it, but it looks correct (numbers add up and such));
2. 7 (checked for copyvio as ell); 9 (no copyvio I can see, verified);
3. 137 (technical data, verified)
4. 75  Done
5. 79  Done
6. 84  Done
7. 71  Done
8. 3  Done
9. 10  Done
10. 65  Done
11. 61  Done
12. 70  Not done Source 404'ed
13. 72  Done
14. 86  Done
15. 5  Not done Source 404'ed
16. 6  Done

Geardona (talk to me?) 06:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Geardona In re ref 70: I have the clipping of it at [1]. In re ref 5: that's ProQuest's database containing Broadcasting, which TWL does not subscribe to. you need to cross-verify with another source that has Broadcasting. luckily, I know a guy... [2]

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)