Talk:WDRB/GA1

Latest comment: 8 days ago by Arconning in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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) 17:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sammi Brie Here is my short review, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prose and MoS

edit

Lead and infobox

edit
  • No issues.

History

edit
  • shareholders for what would become ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV, shareholders in what would become the ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV.
    • Woof, someone put a SEAOFBLUE there. Fixed.
  • in 1977 to the Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company (which later became the Cowles Media Company) in 1977., remove the second mention of in 1977.
  • Louisville athletics, I believe "athletics" should be wikilinked to Sport of athletics?
    • In US parlance, "athletics" is likelier to refer to an entire sports program than to what we would call "track and field".

News operation

edit
  • No issues.

Technical information

edit
  • No issues.

Images

edit
  • Images have proper licensing and are relevant to the article

Refs

edit
  • Random ref check: 7, 15, 22, 29, 30, 34, 40, 54. All good.
  • Earwig seems okay.

Misc.

edit
  • No ongoing edit war, focus and broad information about the topic, neutral.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed