Talk:Kentucky Educational Television/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)

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome

I picked up this article for review, come back to you soon. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You've taken on a fairly big one. This is a regional broadcaster, but unlike most of my articles, this one has 15 transmitters associated with it. If you have questions, let me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

I checked the article upon all Good Article criteria. I figured out that in its current form it does not qualify to the criterias 1a, and 3a. In particular, related to 1a, it is not understandable to an appropriately broad audience, especially in the lead section. However, this can be quickly resolved. Please find the details below.

My second concern is compliance to criteria 3a: that it is not broad in its coverage and does not fully address the main aspects of the topic. However, I’m not fully qualified to make a judgement on 3a since I’m not a specialist on the area. I just made general questions regarding 3a. Please consider adding the information related to 3a or write in separate sections on the Talk page on why this information is not available or not needed. I would strongly recommend that the article be reviewed by a subject-matter expert who can ensure that all key aspects of the topic are adequately covered, however, lack of such review should not prevent it from being compliant to GA. In the meantime, please consider adding the information related to 3a or provide explanations in separate sections on the Talk page on why this information is not available or not necessary. This will help other editors understand the rationale behind the current structure and content of the article. I believe that I’m fully qualified to judge on whether the articles is understandable to an appropriately broad audience, as I myself consider to be a member of such a broad audience: if I don’t understand something, than the broad audience does not understand it. Please consider addressing the issues related to the broadness of the audience. I urge you to address the issues related to the comprehensibility of the article to ensure that it is accessible to as wide an audience as possible.

Lead

PBS

The term "PBS" is not explained. It is used in the lead and in the Short description. Me and my family live in the republic of Moldova, and we have no idea on what "PBS" is; if "PBS" is something well-known to an "US" or Kentucky audience, then the article should not be U.S.-centric or Kentucky-centric: according to MOS:LEAD, the language should be chosen in such a way that that as wide as possible audience should understand it. Difficult-to-understand terminology should be avoided. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it. If the term “PBS” can be linked and briefly defined in the lead, it can’t be in the Short description. I tried to figure out what PBS was and found out that it was a “Public Broadcasting Service”, is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor. Therefore, please consider, on the first instance of the “PBS”, write instead is “Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), an American public broadcaster and television program distributor”.

• I am going to push back on this request in a few pieces:
  • MOS:ACRO states, Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full for the first time, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used again in the article. Common exceptions are post-nominal initials ... or for something most commonly known by its acronym, in which case the expansion can be omitted (except in the lead of its own article) or be in parentheses. Our article on the topic at hand is at PBS and not an expansion thereof.
  • PBS is linked on first mention. One of the great things about a hypertext encyclopedia is that we can link to all the articles, and a reader can grab even a cursory understanding of unfamiliar terms by reading the article with one click. We cannot bog down an article with constant glosses about unfamiliar terms.

Commonwealth

The wikilink of the term Commonwealth does not follow the good practice explained in MOS:PIPE. In particular, it is mentioned "Commonwealth of Kentucky", but when I click to "Commonwealth" I get to an article on "US state" which is perplexing for me as a non-U.S. person. For me, as a non-U.S. person, it is known that "Kentucky" is a U.S. state, but that it is a "Commonwealth" is puzzling. One of the following variants would be OK without any wikilink or if only Kentucky would be wikilinked:

• US state of Kentucky
• state of Kentucky
• Kentucky
• Kentucky state or
• Commonwealth of Kentucky, a US state.

As you see in the last variant, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is linked as a whole. I didn’t know what commonwealth meant, my search revealed that in the context of US states, a commonwealth is a state that has chosen to call itself a commonwealth. Kentucky is one of four US states officially called commonwealths. Maybe we should explain that in the lead if we use the term "commonwealth". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone back and looked at this, and I understand why. While a few states including Kentucky are legally titled Commonwealth, there is no substantive difference. The link target that exists and might explain this is Commonwealth (U.S. state), which I've used in the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Funding

The sentence on funding is incomplete, there is a sentence: “It is operated by the Kentucky Authority for Educational Television, an agency of the Kentucky state government, which provides more than half of its annual funding”, however, it does not seem to be complete, as it is not mentioned even briefly on who provides the remaining funding, a good addition would have been: ", the rest are grants and public donations". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have added some more information in a better position, but I wanted to indicate at the first mention of the authority that the state government is the largest funder of KET. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

American Public Television

The term American Public Television may not be well understood by a general audience. According to MOS:INTRO, it is not enough to just wikilink a term. It is better to avoid terms at all, but if we cannot avoid it, besides wikilinking, we should define it, i.e. "American Public Television, the largest syndicator of programming for public television stations in the United States." -- however, the word "syndicator" itself might not be understandable by a broad audience, such as adolescents outside U.S. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Changed to a more generic mention because I don't have any other content on APT in this article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Kentucky General Assembly

The term "Kentucky General Assembly" is also not defined. A member of a broad audience may have a feeling that it is a kind of "referendum", where all citizens of the state decide something, but it turned to be a state legislature of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, consisting of 38 (Senate) and 100 (House) people. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is that definition something needed in the lead section of an article? No. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Body

Partnership on content creation and exchange

It was only mentioned on partnership to technically broadcast the video/audio information, but not on content creation and exchange. Were there any notable partnerships or collaborations with other organizations in the field of education, culture, or public affairs, or among similar organizations in the other states or countries on cross-licensing of content? If it was the case, please augment the article, if it was not, please mention that as a separate topic on the Talk page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've discussed key KET programs over the station's history throughout the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Noteworthy and remarkable details content creation

The article mentions the specific programs or content that KET produces and broadcasts, but does not go deeper on how is the content created, any noteworthy and remarkable details content creation would have been useful. The article more focused on technical aspects of content distribution, however, the most important aspect of any content is not its distribution but its essence, i.e. what interesting information does it contain and how it was created. Was it used for continuous professional education of adults? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Did you read the Programming section, which goes into quite a bit of detail on the content focus of KET's local programming? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Viewership

Are there any details about the viewership ratings or audience demographics for KET's programming, besides schools? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Not anything generalizable. And these days a lot of those numbers are hard to get due to increasing obstacles to measuring TV viewership. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Impact

Is there any information on the impact of KET's educational programs on schoolchildren or student learning outcomes, if at all – how was the impact of KET was measured, if it was? Is there any overview and reference to studies and research demonstrating the effectiveness, value, efficacy, outcomes, results (etc.) associated with using televised media as an instructional tool specifically within Kentucky context? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything, even historically when educational broadcasting was a much larger part of KET's remit. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Community engagement

Are there any community engagement initiatives organized by KET to involve local residents and promote civic participation, and promotion of public goods activities and awareness that go beyond children at schools? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• There is, but I also am not sure how much of that content would be encyclopedic since it tends to be very grant-dependent and year-to-year. e.g. [1] PDF page 4. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A short list of the most notable and influential programs

Can be compiled a list or description of popular and influential programs produced by KET throughout its history. This would showcase the diverse range of educational, cultural, public affairs shows or programs broadcasted by the network? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've tried to incorporate key programming historically into the body. A lot of series have limited lives or don't get a lot of secondary coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Awards for recognition

The article gives information on a few grants awarded. Did the KET receive awards for its contributions? Are there any notable achievements and awards received by specific productions/programs from national/regional broadcasting associations recognizing excellence in television production/content quality, or from state, national or worldwide organizations and intergovernmental bodies? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to be a purist on awards for TV stations. Generally, the only awards I mention in articles are national journalism awards (e.g. Peabody Award). Most awards that public TV station get are regional and do not confer notability.

Feedback from schools

Is there any information available about any significant partnerships/collaborations between KET and schools/districts/Kentucky Department Education aimed at enhancing educational opportunities for students across various subjects/disciplines based on the feedback from schools? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• One problem I face is that not a lot of this material gets covered. These days, PBS stations provide educational content to schools through a national streaming portal called PBS LearningMedia, and in fact this article is one of the few that mentions it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Funding evolution

Is there any information regarding how funding has evolved over time; including changes made due state budget fluctuations & shifts towards private donations/grants etc? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• This would be an interesting topic but not adequately covered in secondary sources. Budget cuts are discussed in the mainline history section on several occasions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Culture

Was KET mentioned in songs, books, shows (apart from KET itself)? Were there major (national) news coverage, such as in the NY Times, i.e. there was a link to https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/30/education/to-teach-distant-pupils-educators-in-kentucky-turn-on-interactive-tv.html - are there any more mentions? Are there any recent news developments, such as https://www.murrayledger.com/news/kentucky-band-exile-to-be-featured-in-two-ket-events/article_dfa83906-d775-11ee-add0-2fb0be835896.html ? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• #1. Coverage outside-of-state of a PBS station is fairly rare (except for the very largest stations), and the fact that KET had it with Star Channels—already mentioned here—should say something. #2. We cannot have this article be a laundry list of programs and trivia, which can easily bog down a page. Go read KWTV-DT—my go-to example of a sludgy TV station article. Even to an editor with high familiarity with the topic, it's a tough read. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion

While the article is almost ready for GA, it currently falls short of the Good Article criteria the key area related to the requirement to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience, as specified in criteria 1a, especially in the lead section. Fulfilling this broadness requirements is mandatory. However, as for the criteria to be complete, this is not required if you provide a plausible explanation with sufficient details and arguments on why they are not required or not relevant. As with some focused editing and expansion, I believe it could meet these criteria and serve as a valuable resource for readers interested in this topic. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the references to the sources of the information on issues that I raised can be obtained in a local libraries, but the list of those references may be provided by a person a KET responsible for press or public relations. The current article is very technical, to a point somehow hard to understand, therefore, the information that I pointed out may serve as a great contribution. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• With all due respect, going to someone responsible for PR would be an issue for article sourcing quality, verifiability, and all sorts of other things we want in our articles. We have articles that suffer from too many citations to press releases. I use official material sparingly—notably, for a PBS station, I will always cite a Local Content and Service Report (which they have to make to receive federal funding) to provide some idea of the station's local programming, as well as their audited financial statements. (These items are somewhat standardized.)
  A public TV station in the United States, in terms of programming, consists mostly of programming from the PBS network and other distributors, plus local programs depending on the station's size and resources. KET has more size and resources than a lot of stations; not many PBS outlets have a nightly news program, and very few have the range of public affairs content this one does. Thus, my articles tend to cover especially local initiatives and programming; governance and financing; and transmission and technical issues. The latter two topics have more time in this article because of the number of transmitters (Kentucky is three times the size of Moldova) and its status as a state agency. I know this was a tough read for you because you have little familiarity with the structure of American local television, be it private or public. Maxim Masiutin, I believe, quite firmly, that this article covers all the key aspects of KET, and I invite you to take a look and find that a number of the things you've asked for are either already integrated, nonexistent in reliable sources, trivial detail to be avoided, or would cause sourcing issues if implemented. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Now I am sure the the article complies to 3a GA criteria, but still does not comply to 1a. I raised a discussion at Good article discussion#Hard-to-understand terms in the lead. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  As for the PR, I don't mean that we should copy data from PR's reply, but PR can provide sources to low-circulation book or low-circulation newspapers in libraries that may be good sources to some information. However, this requirement is not mandatory, as the article is already covering all major aspects, as my investigation shown. The GA process intends to be lightweight, and the article should just be complete enough to be a GA, not absolutely complete. I just see editor did similar for some articles, for example, for articles for people who lived in the past: they contacted descendants who sent them references to local newspapers. Maybe that would be an idea for future improvement of the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your point about linking to terms and the benefits of a hypertext encyclopedia. However, I believe there is a crucial aspect of the Good Article criteria that is not being fully addressed: the requirement for uncommon terms to be briefly defined.

  While the term "PBS" and others are indeed linked, they are not briefly defined in the text. This is a key part of the MOS:INTRO guideline, which states: "Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible... Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined".

  The terms "PBS", "Commonwealth", "American Public Television", "General Assembly", and "Corporation for Public Broadcasting" are not only unexplained but also appear in the Short description. This could potentially confuse readers, particularly those outside the U.S., who may not be familiar with these terms.

  I appreciate the use of links for these terms, but according to the guidelines, this alone is not sufficient. All three aspects: context, linking, and brief definition, need to be fulfilled.

  Consider publications like The Economist, which provides brief definitions for new terms or company names in a very good way. For instance, if there were a "Corporation for Public Broadcasting", I guess they would write as "Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a private nonprofit entity authorized by a law adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1967" or "Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a non-profit entity created by the U.S. Congress in 1967 to promote and support public broadcasting". They even define well-known companies like Goldman Sachs as "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank...". Let me give you other example how The Economist would defined terms: "Bitcoin, a type of digital or 'cryptocurrency' that operates independently of a central bank", "Brexit, a term used to refer to the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union", "Silicon Valley, a region in Northern California which is known as a hub for high technology, innovation, and social media"...

  Such brief definitions in the lead of a GA candidate article would greatly enhance its accessibility and readability. Unless the rule that uncommon terms should be briefly defined is fulfilled, I'm inclined to conclude that the article does not pass the GA criteria.

  Also, let me explain how the term "General Assembly" that you declined to explain differs between U.S. and some European countries, such as Moldova or Romania or other countries in Europe. In the U.S. a "General Assembly" often refers to a legislative assembly, especially at the state level. In Europe, the General Assembly is a meeting where the company's shareholders can make decisions concerning the company, in the case of a capital company, the company law dictates that an ordinary General Assembly be held once a year, and is typically held once a year, but extraordinary General Assemblies can also be held according to demand, but this is uncommon to meet more than once a year in a joint-stock company.

  I look forward to your thoughts on this matter. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

I will ask for second opinion. Question is whether the fact that the terms "PBS", "Commonwealth", "American Public Television", "General Assembly", and "Corporation for Public Broadcasting" not explained in the lead consists a violation of 1a (understandable for the broad audience". Please only make the opinion, but the final decicion is on me as the first reviewer. According to WP:GAN/I#R3, if there is disagreement over interpretation of the good article criteria, a reviewer may ask for a second opinion. I am asking for the second opinion on the following question is the fact that the terms "PBS", "Commonwealth", "American Public Television", "General Assembly", and "Corporation for Public Broadcasting" are not explained in the lead constitutes a violation of the broad audience requirement of the criteria 1a. Please reply according to WP:GAN/I#2O and then put the status back to "onreview". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There were opinions at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1216867373#Hard-to-understand_terms_in_the_lead but they were not format GA second opinions. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at WT:GAN and will be providing a formal second opinion. Upon further examination, I think most of the issues highlighted above are actually not major issues. The full name of PBS could probably be listed in full, and it may be beneficial to mention that the Kentucky General Assembly is Kentucky's legislative branch. On the other hand, I do think it would veer into trivial detail to explain that the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky is a state rather than a non-state commonwealth. (For that matter, do we need to even say the "U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky"? I know the legal name is the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but legally it's a state, as opposed to non-state commonwealths like Puerto Rico.) Similarly, I think American Public Television and Corporation for Public Broadcasting could be linked, rather than explained in full in the lead. It can still be understandable to a broad audience without veering into unrelated detail (which could possibly contravene WP:GACR#3b).

Are these terms the only point of contention here? If so, I am not seeing anything that is worthy of a fail, as mentioned above. Perhaps the General Assembly and PBS could be explained, but I do not think the terminology is so confusing that a general reader would be confused, even after clicking or hovering over the link. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think not explaining these organizations in further detail in the lead is fine. Opting to use "state" instead of "commonwealth" in the lede is an option, but I wouldn't require it. It would be a boon to explain what PBS and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting are deeper in the prose, so the line "KET transitioned to become a member station of PBS in 1970 upon its creation" can be expanded to explain the significance of this event, for example. One option is to use footnotes in the lede to explain unfamiliar terms, but I don't think that's required. Wikilinks do a lot of work here, I think it's quite readable even as someone unfamiliar with these US particularities. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I endorse what Maple said regarding the use of footnotes. I also agree that these terms (PBS, CPB) can be further explained in the prose. Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Saw the discussion on WT:GAN and I agree with all of this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:40, 2 April 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.