Talk:WBBH-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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 02:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Another GA review to start! Reviewing will take up to a week. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:19, 19 March 2024 (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:

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

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:

   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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concerns about copyright violations, nothing on Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool, pass!

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

   No unstability issues with the article!

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good work on the article, Sammi Brie! I have a few comments below:

Comments

Spotchecks

I spotchecked several sources, some of which didn't verify provided content.

• Under Buerry, Burgess, and Hoffman: Early years: "proposing a station with a more intensive focus on local news than the only existing station in town, CBS affiliate WINK-TV (channel 11)." – the newspapers.com reference doesn't verify that WBBH-TV would focus more on local news than WINK-TV, WINK-TV isn't even mentioned in the reference.
  • Tweaked
• Also in the same section: "The station lost ABC programs to a new station in Naples, WEVU (channel 26), at this time as well." – now, the newspapers.com reference does state that WEVU would start programming, but doesn't verify that the station lost programming to WEVU.
  • This one has to be inferred, unfortunately. Material mentioning that WBBH aired ABC programming is kind of rare, (e.g. this) but it almost goes without saying in this field.

That's fair; I'll take your word for it!

• In section Waterman ownership, "...WEVU did likewise with channel 7 and changed its call sign to WZVN-TV the next year." – the newspapers.com clipping doesn't verify that WEVU changed its call sign to WZVN-TV, though it does verify that it was channel 7.
  • Added another ref.

Prose

Just a few concerns:

• "The studios were finished by the start of December, with erection of the station's transmitting tower in Lehigh Acres in progress." – how about "in progress" to "ongoing"?
• "Waterman Broadcasting began to search for ways to expand the station in the early 1990s." – "began to search for ways to expand" to "began attempts to expand".
• "...in all, there were 20 firings" – maybe the firings could be clarified a bit, to "there were 20 staff firings"?
  • Changed all.

Other concerns

• The image File:WBBH-TV (2014).svg, used in the infobox, is licensed under CC 4.0. Shouldn't it be used by a different license, like PD-textlogo? Pretty sure it's in the public domain, since it only consists simple geometric shapes or text.
  • Bad logo uploaders strike again. Fixed.
• Reference 30 is used in two locations. Can there be a specific page in the reference to use for the two locations?
  • Added.

That's all I got! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Tails Wx: Responded. The one item, unfortunately, was not mentioned directly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Sammi Brie, happy to promote this to a good article! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:33, 23 March 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.