Talk:WUPA/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aoidh (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Will review this over the next day or so. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Please see the comments below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Prose comments

 * Some of the section headers in the History section have a timeline of years (1995–2006) while others do not (The independent years) can the years be included in each relevant section header for consistency?
 * Done.

Construction, land mobile dispute, and STV years

 * In actuality, the owner was not Clint Murchison but Clyde A. Murchison, whom a 1982 news article described as Clint's great-nephew. could the paper the article was in (AJC) be included in the prose for context?
 * Done.
 * However, its arrival was not a complete start-up for a myriad of technical reasons. I'm not quite sure what "a complete start-up" means in this context?
 * Reworded.

The independent years

 * ...an initial agreement reached to sell the station to the RBP Corporation, a Massachusetts concern, but no transaction was consummated. I had to look up what a concern was in this context because I was unfamiliar with the term. If this is referring to Concern (business) could that perhaps be wikilinked for others unfamiliar with that term?
 * Simply reworded.
 * WVEU featured an eclectic mix, a function of being the "poor cousin" of Atlanta independent television. If "poor cousin" is a quote could it be attributed to the source along with "quicker picker-upper"? Who considered the station to be these things?
 * Added author information.

CBS 69?

 * The section header for WUPA might need to be reworded; per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, section headings should not be phrased as a question.
 * Changed to "Almost a CBS affiliate"
 * it was an unexpected windfall. since the deal didn't go through should that perhaps be it would be an unexpected windfall or it would have been an unexpected windfall?
 * CBS went through and bought it.

UPN affiliation (1995–2006)

 * Despite the upheaval, WVEU came out with something just as valuable to its future. This is probably just my personal opinion but I feel like that sentence could be removed entirely and it not affect the article. Who says it's just as valuable?
 * Reworded.

I spot checked about 10 or so of the sources and there were no verifiability concerns. The only issues I could find were the minor points above. - Aoidh (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready for your consideration. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good to go. - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)