Talk:KMIZ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KMIZ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KMIZ/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ixtal (talk · contribs) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful. I usually review section by section for grammar and source issues as I read, then provide general comments on the whole article. Please use {{done}} to indicate when feedback has been addressed. I encourage you to debate if you find any feedback you disagree with. If I do not answer within 48 hours, please {{ping}} me. I am quite a forgetful editor and it is likely I forgot to get back to you. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • It provided a full-time outlet for the ABC network, previously split between the market's two other major commercial stations. Does this "previously split" refer to the ABC network? Bit confused by the wording of this phrase.
    • ABC shows would have been aired by the other two stations in the market prior to KCBJ-TV coming on air, as there were only two stations to carry the main programs of the three networks. Not an uncommon arrangement historically in so-called "short" markets.
      • Would these stations divide the programming? As in station A would do Show 1 and 4 and station B would do 2 and 3? — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. The Television Factbook for 1970–71 shows KOMU as NBC/ABC and KRCG as CBS/ABC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the deal turned sour, and the prospective buyers sued for breach of contract. The comma here seems unnecessary to me.
    • WP:CINS. Two sentences connected by a ", and". Comments to here: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair.checkY

History[edit]

  • No comments here. I'll fix some minor things I noticed (e.g. in-line citation numbers out of order)

Notable former on-air staff[edit]

  • No comments here.

Technical information[edit]

  • No comments here.

Other comments on prose[edit]

  • I will now proceed with a source revision. I understand a number of GA reviewers don't do it, so I apologize for extending the wait! This is a fantastic article from what I've read. My most sincere apologies for taking longer when I said I'd finish revising it some days ago. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Couldn't find source 7 specifically mentioning the Jacksonville town 17mi SW, but I assume that is mentioned either elsewhere in the sources of the page or I missed it so is reasonable info to include regardless.
    • Ref invocation added to fix this.
  • Can't find mention of the specific percentages increasing the rating from 3 to 12 in 1986, I assume this would be in the next page of the newspaper rather than 46.
    • Last paragraph of, you guessed it, the next page. I will always link the other pages which have to be separately clipped. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of sources check out or I can't access. Altogether well-cited. I'll be passing the source reviews; the GA status doesn't really depend on the two minor things I mention above although you are free to fix them.— ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • No copyright issues indicated by Copyvio tool.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 22:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KMIZ; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KMIZ&oldid=1212874461"