Talk:KASN/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 11:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Reserving. Will try to review over the weekend, but there are no guarantees. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Responded to all your issues. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy with changes. Thank you for explaining the Fox history, it makes a lot more sense with the knowledge of Fox being a small upstart not running a 24/7 program. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Figured I'd explain further: The major U.S. networks do not program 100% of the broadcast day (the Spanish networks aside)—network affiliates fill the rest of the time with independently distributed shows and local newscasts. But Fox programs less than ABC, CBS, or NBC. This was especially true for the years prior to 1993, when Fox did not offer prime time programs every night of the week. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

 * Lead: I have very little knowledge of American TV (I lived in the US for two years, but did not own a TV). But I am confused by the "independent" / "Fox affiliate" stuff in the lead. The station was founded as independent, immediately affiliated with Fox but struggled to compete with the other independent station?
 * You just hit the nail on the head. This was the second-rated indie in the market behind KLRT.
 * KJTM-TV: Early years: is the construction permit for transmission facilities and/or studios?
 * Transmitter facilities, though at that time you also usually need to build your studios. It's "Go ahead, build your station."
 * so can you be independent and a Fox affiliate? I really struggle to understand what these words mean
 * This is a toughie, and I think a lot of modern readers would equally struggle here. Fox was a very new network in the late 1980s, and it only programmed a few nights a week. Fox stations were still considered independents into the early 90s. Even the network's owned-and-operated stations were members of the trade group for independent stations as late as 1992. In the period when KJTM was a Fox affiliate, the answer is yes. I've added a footnote to this effect.
 * KASN: Loss of Fox affiliation: shift by TVX to operating in markets larger than Little Rock did they own other stations? worth mentioning as background?
 * They did, but it's a long detour. TVX Broadcast Group is a GA (in fact, it's almost a Good Topic, but a prior discussion kind of closed off that path)
 * the Pine Bluff studio had been closed I don't think we've been told that there was a Pine Bluff studio
 * I'm hampered here by lack of Pine Bluff newspaper, but it's briefly mentioned in the Little Rock papers.
 * The two had been in discussions The two companies? The two managers?
 * Fixed.
 * channel 38's debts I don't quite follow: can the "channel" have debts independent of the station?
 * I was using it as metonymy, which is really common. Clarified.
 * UPN affiliation: KLRT–KASN's former Markham Street studios first time we hear about these. What is KLRT–KASN? It hasn't been mentioned before.
 * Fixed both of these by rewording "KLRT–KASN" to "KLRT and KASN" and adding a mention that Clear Channel consolidated operations into the Markham Street site which had belonged to KLRT since day one.
 * CW affiliation: Consider using to support the inflation data with a citation.
 * Done.
 * otherwise two separate companies shouldn't this be "two otherwise separate companies"?
 * Yes
 * Shouldn't "channels" in the infobox link to Television channel frequencies instead of the near-dab Channel (broadcasting)?
 * Good suggestion — going to run this by a few people before making it, but that's a far better target.

General comments and GA criteria
Source spotchecks to follow. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Checking Special:PermanentLink/1214060475. Source checks clear! Sources are reliable, nicely formatted, not plagiarised, everything fine here. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Images: logo is fine and relevant. Odd that there seems to be no image of the building the studio is in anywhere on Commons
 * Not too uncommon — I have bigger articles that need images too (e.g. WFTV).
 * Stable (debate about priority of airport codes seems to have been decided).
 * Scope (focus/broadness) seems about right. Perhaps the subchannels could be expanded slightly from the pure table. As seen above, a few points could be clarified. Do we know about competitors in more recent times?
 * The subchannels are all national services with little salience to get sections in this article. The closest "competitor" is KARZ, which is under the same roof.
 * MoS: looks OK. Lead section looks slightly short, but I don't have a great suggestion what to add.
 * 16 ok
 * 18b ok
 * 26b ok
 * 42 ok
 * 59 ok