Talk:WYOU/GA1

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

Nominator: 16:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, happy to take a look at this article. Noting before I begin that it seems like standards have changed recently around inexperienced reviewers so I'll probably be calling someone in from the talk page before I hit approve or deny. I also like to clarify that you are free to argue anything I raise or ignore it, doesn't offend me.
 * We're running a backlog drive right now designed to help new reviewers get used to the process. The checks are there to help ensure that the new reviewers are meeting standard (I had to send a GAN back because the reviewer failed to even check for image licensing). I am a reviewer at volume with about 300 reviews (and a nominator at volume), and I will say you turned in a pretty good review. I have addressed the issues you have flagged. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ForksForks asked me to check over the review, which I'm glad to do if you want another pair of eyes. But given that your review experience is a few times my own (and I'm one of the more active reviewers!), I figure you guys don't need to wait on my account if you're satisfied with the review as it is. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Review
I like to get my prose comments out of the way first:

Tom Powell, the first face seen on channel 22


 * Is this a typical way of phrasing this? Not sure if I have seen this in wikivoice.
 * Good point: reworded.

catapulted into a dominant first-place position


 * Reads as promotional
 * Not for WNEP, oh no. I just added a 1984 reference with the fact that it had some of the highest-rated TV newscasts in the country. I believe the references support "dominant" here.

The station's problems were compounded...


 * This sentence could probably be split into two.
 * Done.

1957 U.S. Senate hearings into racketeering


 * Do we have a wiki article we can wikilink here?
 * Done.

WYOU's archive of newsfilm is the most extensive in the market.


 * I guess I'm showing my unfamiliarity with the subject. As a reader this sounds interesting and I'm not sure what it means. Their own newsfilm, I assume? This is just available online? In the market -- that means that there are markets for newsfilm or just that within the local area this is the best archive? Also, suggest merging a couple of these single sentence paragraphs in this section.
 * It means that in terms of footage of historic events covered by the station, the longest-running archive without lost film is WYOU's. "In the market" means the local TV market. I'd do more merging if there were not significant time gaps or structural issues; the items here are shorter.

Good article criteria

 * Well written?
 * Yes, I think this article is free of spelling and grammar errors, is appropriately broad.
 * Suggest trimming the lead section, we are nearing 500 words there and it is pretty detailed.
 * Our main issue in lead length is that they are too short, but I've gone down to three paragraphs.


 * Broad in coverage, not overly detailed?
 * Yes I think we are good here. This article tells a relatively long history and is an appropriate length for that kind of history. I don't think there was too much jargon.


 * Neutral POV?
 * Yes.


 * Stable?
 * Yes.


 * Images?
 * No copyright issues. Standard fair use logo.
 * I would love a second image in the article somewhere to help break up the text. Seeing the news building really added to the article as it lets the reader place it in a specific time in history.
 * I just have to get lucky. That was fun to find. Unfortunately, no free-use images exist of the WBRE building or anything else associated with WYOU (and I do look for these when I write articles).


 * Verifiability
 * Inline citations are all set, nice job here.
 * Now let's look at sources!

Source spot check
This article is mostly sourced to a prodigious list of newspaper sources. Can't imagine how long it took to pull those together, so nice job. Let's check on a few. No concerns about reliability other than that some of these seem to be columns.
 * The added ref shifts most of these (from 29 up) one spot, so 29 is now 30, etc.


 * Source 118
 * I'm having trouble verifying the specific claims regarding the news archive, the extent of WYOU's collection, and the fact that WBRE had disposed of the news footage. Maybe I am missing something
 * Did you try reading both pages of this clipping?


 * Source 105
 * I'm not sure what the blurb about Kim Supon verifies in the sentence it is attached to. Source 104 should be fine?
 * Second column, toward the bottom, "Off to Harrisburg".


 * Source 35
 * Verified


 * Source 29
 * Verifies sentence it is attached to but previous sentence is not cited.
 * The previous sentence is intended as a summary of the paragraph.


 * Source 55
 * Verified


 * Source 110, Source 111
 * Nearly one million -- maybe just say 900k? it's something of a difference. Otherwise verified.
 * Changed.

Comments
Overall this is a very strong article but I have a couple things I flagged that I want looked at. Thank you. ForksForks (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s show time. Thanks for the clarifications, I was as of yet unfamiliar with the news clipping format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForksForks (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)