Talk:KUVS-DT/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tokisaki Kurumi (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

First time doing a review here, haven't done everything yet. So... let's start with a list of what I currently feel could be improved:

I think these are issues that can be resolved relatively quickly, so I decide to wait for them to be resolved before putting up Good article nominations/templates while reading sources in the meantime. ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the article mentions "one of the oldest Spanish-language TV stations in California", but the text below doesn't seem to explain this specifically.
 * Reworded the lead.
 * "The move was roundly opposed by citizens' groups that felt that Concord's channel 42 should be reserved for a proposal with more local programming as well as KEMO-TV (channel 20) in San Francisco and KMUV-TV (channel 31) in Sacramento, whose formats then included many Spanish-language shows." It is mentioned that Channel 19 is also available in Spanish, so at least I'm not reading too much into it here, because the local civic groups won't lose their Spanish programs, why do they choose to oppose?
 * The civic groups wanted a local English-language station. KEMO and KMUV didn't want competition. I have reworded.
 * "not to do business with the Modesto station." With the Modesto stations? I assume this is saying that they alleged all stations.
 * No, it's referring to KLOC-TV specifically.
 * The KCBA and KREN-TV part feels a bit abrupt, maybe add something to explain it?
 * I'm trying to highlight that he was expanding his broadcasting reach beyond Modesto/Sacramento.
 * wikilinks:
 * "broadcasting in color", might be good to have a wikilink here.
 * "Monterey Bay area"
 * First tweaks done. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 23 August 2023 (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:
 * Overall it's quite good for me. Only one instance that may need to be edited: "general-entertainment".
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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): (done, see below and edit history)
 * See below. The review template is a bit absurd for me when trying to make a list. Except for the issues mentioned below, every sentence can be supported.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I noticed that the Univision ownership paragraph, in the source, mentions more Spanish language programming, but in the article only mentions a decrease in Christian programming. Considering that the channel actually has English programming, I think further explanation may be necessary? Also, as an average, I'm interested in the sale price (converted to dollars), and while that may be harder to find, I'd suggest adding it if possible. Again, as a reader who doesn't know anything, I would suggest a slight mention of the channel's current language and program type situation in the Newscasts and other local programming paragraph (if possible).
 * I've reworded that section a bit. The sale price was already in there. And frankly, with a station like this, every single program is in Spanish. I also added a couple of sources too. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 01:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Optional

 * Why does rabbitears have wikilink and other sources don't? I thought at first that there was some special format, so the sources don't have wikilinks added ...
 * The tool I use to format Newspapers.com citations (i.e. most of them) does not wikilink titles—and with good reason, as sometimes its names do not quite match for certain publications.
 * A little too many primary sources in the last section.
 * With FCC technical information, this is really common.
 * I'll double check to see if there's anything else worth mentioning on Google Books and other sources.

. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Primary sources for some of the technical information are just unavoidable in this field. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)