Talk:KTVK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3TV Criticism[edit]

3TV recently

Criticism[edit]

3TV's news production have often been criticized by other media professionals in Phoenix as shallow, with its criteria of selecting news personalities being perceived as placing looks above all else. Scenes of 3TV news anchors smiling or making light of serious news such as murders are often ridiculed.

However, 3TV's special reports on certain issues do, from time to time, show a level of professional quality that is worthy of awards.

  • I have moved this subsection to the talk page because, while I agree with the criticism and consider it to be truthful, it is opinion. The statements cite no references and so, fail WP:V. Because I believe the statements to be truthful and fixable with citations, I do not consider outright deletion to be appropriate. I do question, however the "3TV recently" text; was that meant as a section header, or was it a typo? dhett (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pending Deal with Meredith and Time inc[edit]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-meredith-time-inc-20171126-story.html

This proposed deal involves Time inc's assets and Meredith's assets coming into one entity. As of November 2017 the Koch Brothers has been named as people involved in the deal. Its a pending deal that affects Meredith owned stations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/business/dealbook/time-inc-meredith-corporation-koch-brothers.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.44 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Album 3tv icon.gif[edit]

Image:Album 3tv icon.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved fair use rationale has been added. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic additions to on-air staff[edit]

An employees being listed on the article isn't appropriate unless each name on the list meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. That way we ensure that content in the article is relevant to the subject, as determined by reliable sources, and not just a random, undue listing of employees. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The staff I've posted were taken from the [website]. I tried to verify what timeslot they were on. LockeCole (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply taking the names off of the station's website doesn't mean they should be listed; just because they work somewhere doesn't mean they need to be mentioned on an encyclopedia article about that subject. If a name doesn't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, it doesn't belong in such a list of names. - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KTVK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KTVK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on KTVK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KTVK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Sammi Brie, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sammi Brie, other than a couple issues, the nomination is pretty much a good article. I'll promote it once the issues are fixed, good work on it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Ref 3 links to the news piece of ref 11.
  • LLC probably doesn't need to be wikilinked.
  • Ref 56 should be marked as dead instead of live.
  • External links in the rebroadcasters list should be removed. The list itself should be cited to either a single reference or removed altogether.
  • Tayi Arajakate, I have fixed 1 through 3. #4 is trickier because the US FCC has not updated a list (Input Channels for TV Translator Stations) that could be cited on this topic since 2017, and it is majorly out of date due to a repack of television stations (2016 United States wireless spectrum auction) and the final shut-off of low-power analog TV stations in the US (this week). There is no list to cite these days. I actually emailed the FCC on having that list updated last week and have not heard back. It's generally been the standard in this type of page to have the links to the FCC record (generated by a template, {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}) in this section of the article. It could be worse; this used to be a {{hidden}} box, which is now generally verboten for accessibility reasons. I get the EL issue but, right now, there is no alternative until the FCC updates that list, and that is calling for a larger change in our topic area. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sammi Brie, in that case maybe those external links can instead be bundled together in a reference? They could probably remain as a primary source for the time being. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tayi Arajakate, I've done that for now. I may open a discussion about this to figure out what the right course of action is. This topic area is notorious for sometimes being out of line with encyclopedic policies and I've been strenuously working to get it there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

  1. Comprehension: The comprehension of the article is good.
    2. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear and concise. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Article is compliant with the manual of style. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
    3. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article has list of references with inline citations for all lines in the body. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sources used are adequately reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research found. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyright violation or plagiarism found. Pass Pass
  3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.
    4. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article provides broad coverage to all major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article remains on topic without unncessary deviations. Pass Pass
  4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
    5. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view. Pass Pass
  5. Stability: The article is stable.
    6. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No edit warring or content disputes found. Pass Pass
  6. Illustration: The article is adequately illustrated.
    7. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Image used is tagged with its appropriate copyright status. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Use is suitable. Pass Pass

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 05:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting complex GA, on plenty of good sources, few offlin sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. In all hooks, I'm no friend of having to wade through 4 words before arriving at the station name. I'm no friend of the "gun" image, nor on Cronkite proposing something that didn't become real. Open to an ALT3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: What about the following reword of ALT1?
ALT1a: ... that KTVK went from being a "blot on ABC's affiliate ledger" to a television station the network only gave up reluctantly within a decade?
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and how about this version?
ALT1b:... that within a decade, KTVK in Phoenix went from being a "blot on ABC's affiliate ledger" to a station the network only gave up reluctantly?
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KTVK&oldid=1208048690"