Talk:Vermont Public/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Starting with two big-ticket things. I expect further comments to be more minor . Aim to finish initial review today or tomorrow. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First round of content changes.

1: Prose/MoS

 * The lede is rather short, especially given that some of it really belongs in the body (see ). I understand that the radio and TV components get their own "mini-ledes", but those are short too. Either the main lede, the mini-ledes, or both need a fair amount of expansion to comply with MOS:INTRO.
 * Fixed by removing the mini-leads and writing a new summary lead from scratch.
 * Thanks! This left a few remaining prose/MoS issues in the new content, but since they were the last blocker to promotion, I've just fixed them myself. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * — should be a colon
 * N/A as reworded.
 * — by whom?
 * Fixed.
 * What is Vermont ETV? [Update having reached TV section: Ahhh that's what it is. Should probably move that up then.]
 * Resolved by flipping the order of TV and radio. While I wanted to match other articles of this type that are radio-before-TV, this is the chronological match.
 * — The causal link here is unclear. Make clear that at least one of the ministers worked to make VPR happen. (Some more detail would be ideal but if there's nothing in the sources beyond what Pendergrast briefly touches on, fair enough.)
 * Changed.
 * — Vermont ETV's share
 * Fixed. (Reach, not share.)
 * — Dangling participle. Subject of first half of sentence is VPR, subject of second half is the college.
 * Fixed.
 * — What Fort Ethan Allen facility?
 * Fixed.
 * I don't personally have a problem with the University of Vermont dupelink in the radio and TV sections, since it's separate contexts, but the second link in the TV section should go.
 * Fixed (left a dupelink between lead and body).
 * — it → ETV
 * Fixed.
 * Is $52/71.9$ ≈ 72% "vast"?
 * Removed.
 * — unclear
 * Reworded.
 * When was the CRA revocation?
 * 2013 (the decision is linked in the article)

2a: Ref layout

 * Consistently either link publication names or don't.
 * Done.

2b: Citations
MINREF-required cites:
 * Bish 1976 ✅
 * Dubé 1968 & Vineberg 1968 ✅ Latter verifies potentially contestable claim

Sources checked incidentally in course of review:
 * Pendergrast 1978 ✅

Spot-check of prime-numbered sources (@1145938671):
 * Allen 2021 & Thys 2021 I'm fine with deferring to Thys' headcount over Allen's since Allen's is of pre-merger numbers, but you should clarify "full-time" per both.
 * Reworded.
 * Burlington Free Press 1975a&b ✅
 * Burlington Free Press 1975c ✅
 * FCC ✅
 * Burlington Free Press 1977a&b ✅ Technically neither cite verifies the detail of it being 107.9, but that's verified soon after in Burlington Free Press 1978, so I think that's fine.
 * Burlington Free Press 1978, 1979, & 1980 ✅
 * Lister Smith 1980 ✅
 * Johnson 2007a&b ✅
 * D'Auria 2022 ✅
 * Vermont Public
 * Safe & Sound claim Fails verification at least for next 3 weeks. Is a static source available?
 * Safe & Sound looks to have just exited production! Removed since I'm only listing current programming. This is what happens when pages linger at GA.
 * Classical music claim ✅ Source does not verify that some come from Classical 24; however, the programs serve as their own citation for that, so a separate source is not strictly required (and indicates that the claim is indeed correct)
 * Gregg 2004 ✅ One might nitpick that the source only verifies that as the planned date, but for a claim as minor or this I'm not going to object
 * Turner 2005 ✅
 * Fybush 2008 Okay, this one I do think the nitpick is necessary: "Last week" relative to October 6 could be either October or September.
 * Fixed by removing date ref. License to cover filed September 30, 2008, so this may very well be the case.
 * Burlington Free Press 1967 ✅
 * McKnight 1981 & Boone 1988 ✅
 * Blackburn 1997 ✅
 * Rutland Daily Herald 1996 ✅ Same issue as Gregg 2004
 * Boone 1989 I would say "up to 15,000"
 * Fixed


 * Second fixes as of Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 02:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

3a: Breadth

 * Having the merger only be mentioned in the lede seems like underkill. This article is about Vermont Public Co., and its body should spend some time discussing Vermont Public Co. as an entity, even if it's just a brief third top-level content section.
 * Added a short content section with the material that had been in the lead.

4: Neutrality

 * I like this kind of phrasing, but I think may read as anti-union. I would suggest simply 1979 saw a 57-day strike by Vermont ETV production personnel, which has neither pro- nor anti-union connotations, and I think still keeps that particular writing style you like.
 * Fixed.