Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this! A quick note, I will be out of town on Saturday and Sunday, and will likely be inactive on those days. :) E_F⁵ 13:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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):

   The lede is written fine, and at four paragraphs is definitely long enough. I'm a bit confused about header titles like "WNAC: Becoming a force in Providence" and "WSTG: Revival", are colons usually put in headers of news-related pages?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A list of references is present and is properly formatted, all references in that list look reliable and none stand out as promotional or user-generated. All paragraphs have end-of-sentence citations (excluding the lede), Earwig only found a 2.0% similarity with this and this source, and it's just long words that catch it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well written, talks about the channel's history, from the older usage of the broadcast license in 1954 to 2023, which is in-depth enough. Other things, like subchannels and operations, are also included.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Back to the headers, "WNAC: Becoming a force in Providence" seems non-neutral. I don't usually write about News channels, however, so it may just be me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Hasn't been edited in over 150 days, more than stable enough.

6. 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):

   The three photos in the article are all company logos; all of these logos fail the originality threshold and are tagged as such. All have appropriate captions as well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   @Sammi Brie: See above comments regarding headers, please let me know if that is a perfectly acceptable way to word a header in regard to news articles.

• It's perfectly fine, EF5. I'm aware that this is a new type of article for virtually any reviewer because only two people write these to GA or FA standard and we don't review each other's work (as frequent collaborators).
  I do write some headers with colons when a call sign is short-lived or tied to/introduced in a specific era of a station, e.g. KARE (TV) "WMIN-TV and WTCN-TV: The shared-time era"; KCPQ "KCPQ: The Clover Park years". That said, "Becoming a force in Providence" definitely isn't neutral on second thought, so I replaced that header. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Other than that, everything looks great, thanks for fixing that and clarifying! I'll take one more look to see if I catch anything. :) E_F⁵ 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]