Talk:Milton Grant/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: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw your progress in the WikiCup and i'm quite impressed- happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: The article is already very high quality, just some minor tweaks needed. Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:01, 11 July 2023 (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.	...such brands as Pepsi, Motorola. and Briggs... - period to comma ...though The Post could not even obtain a confirmation of his death... - cut "even" ...Nexstar Broadcasting Group announced that it would purchase the Grant stations for $87.5 million... - make past tense, WP:INTOTHEWOULDS Due to Federal Communications Commission ownership regulations... - previously in the article it just said FCC- why the full name later? If anything, the full name should be said first, then the acronym later. Header "Former Grant-owned stations" needs to be an en dash (–) per MOS:DASH Well-written prose with no typos
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead summarizes the article well, no words to watch, proper layout- no MOS violations
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The table needs references; maybe add a ref column, or if you have a source that lists them all you can put it in the table header List of references is properly formatted
	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).	Article is well-cited to reliable news sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article contains many references, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. The high scores on a few sources are due to quotes and names.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the aspects of Milton's life and his personal life
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	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.	Only image (File:WLAXTVStudio.jpg) is properly CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is relevant and properly captioned. I was surprised to find no image of Grant present, but after some searching, there only seems to be one in Google Images, and the source is dubious.
	7. Overall assessment.

• @MyCatIsAChonk: I've added a reference column to the table. One objection I'll make, though I've reworded: The "would" here makes sense because in broadcasting the deal takes time to close and requires FCC approval. As for the image...yeah. Grant was notoriously reticent to speak to the media, especially in his later years (really after Grant II got going). The Regardie's interview, which was a cover story, was nearly impossible to track down, but DanCherek at WP:RX somehow pulled it off. I'm sure you can tell I had a lot of fun researching this topic; it is the key article for an intended GT which, after this is passed, will be 9 of 16. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sammi Brie: Was surprised to find so little on Grant after quick Google searches, almost questioned the notability of the man... very impressed by your research for this article. Good to go for GA! By the way, if you ever have extra time on your hands, I have an open GA on John Oliver- no obligation, of course, just saw you were active as a reviewer and thought it was worth mentioning. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:09, 12 July 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.