Talk:KIDY/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I...should do this. I'll be available to review tomorrow-local-time, I think. Vaticidalprophet 08:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, any update on this? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- was elsewhere. Here goes. Vaticidalprophet 22:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * The second paragraph is a bit choppy. I found myself wanting to pick apart several sentences in it:
 * We introduce SRC without any context. Lead context is obviously a bit tricky, but it's a very nonspecific name. (Does it stand for anything?)
 * Too much context to jam into the lead. It was a majority subsidiary of a company called Southwest Republic Company.
 * SRC won, but it was unable to obtain an ABC affiliation after KTXS-TV of Sweetwater built a translator to rebroadcast its programs in San Angelo and abandoned the project in 1971. This is a little bit of a garden path sentence. The first "it" is unnecessary. The second half of the sentence underspecifies rather than overspecifies -- it's nonobvious if the rebroadcast or the station itself was abandoned, at first glance.
 * A decade later, Sage Broadcasting won a new channel 6 construction permit. It was likewise unable to obtain a promised ABC affiliation Is this really "likewise"? They managed to get the station, which SRC didn't.
 * The two consecutive "It [did X]" sentences are a little awkward.
 * The general impression I get is that this paragraph might not be the best way to present the station's early history. It's very names-focused, and doesn't quite form a smooth whole. It's not obvious whether pre-KIDY Channel 6 and early KIDY should be the same paragraph, given they're so separate chronologically and in ownership terms.

Channel 6 prior to KIDY

 * The first paragraph is a little bit inside-baseball about channel assignments, in that it assumes the reader knows why Abilene would care about having channel 3 (and why three groups were fighting over it). The source clarifies some geographic considerations? (I assume this also applies to the border problem, but for some reason Proquest won't show me that one)
 * Yes. Channels had to be spaced—190 mi apart—and you really wanted a VHF assignment. (I've written about a world of dead early UHF TV stations: KANG-TV WCOS-TV WNET (Rhode Island) WIRK-TV WTVI (Florida), and that's just off the top of my head.) This really can't be written any other way. Also, the ProQuest module that includes Broadcasting and Variety isn't in TWL's subscription. WorldRadioHistory has the former freely available, but I don't typically link to it now after some concerns from other editors.
 * Otherwise this seems okay.

Early years

 * Was the minority shares thing resolved somehow?
 * No other coverage is available.
 * That is an impressive number of missed launch dates -- it might be worth mentioning some of them in the article, given just how delayed it was and just how...optimistic?...they seem to have been that it'd get past all those delays.
 * Added that. I feel like I've seen this a lot, but this station did kick the can down the road a fair bit.
 * This might be a tricky one, sorry if so. Can we confirm that it actually did launch on May 12? We're citing that to a source from the 10th, and it'd been delayed yet another month by that announcement.
 * The oddity here is that they were on the air with test programming but had yet to "formally launch" — May 12 was their first day of regular programs. May 12 is cited as their start date in the Television and Cable Factbook, and it's also mentioned here.
 * The sources seem to mention that their news operation struggled a lot at first?
 * Added a hint of this. By the way... The newscasts seem to have stopped in May 1989, but no source definitively says that.
 * The NYPD Blue story is interesting. The source after it was dropped gives quite a bit more detail, and in particular about how the boycott was clearly organized/pressured by the local church to a big degree, and that more people supported the show airing than opposed it.
 * This was a local chapter in a national story. A lot of ABC affiliates did not take Blue.

Expansion + later ownership

 * Relatively little to say overall, but there's some tricky proseline at the end here. It would flow better if consolidated more -- you currently jump from "they had the newscast in X year" to "they didn't have the newscast in Y year" in separate lines, for instance. I'm not convinced the relatively brief recent history calls for three paragraphs -- one slightly jumpy paragraph would still be the lesser evil. ("They debuted a morning news program in 2014, which had been dropped by 2023", etc.)
 * Tried to reflow this a bit.

I think that's all I have. Vaticidalprophet 22:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tried reflowing some of the problem areas. I almost went ahead and merged KXVA into this article, but I did not want to do so in the middle of the review process. Thoughts? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vaticidalprophet Just pinging to check on this. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just looking back over this now -- hopefully tomorrow. Sorry about the wait, there were a weird few days in between. Vaticidalprophet 05:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)