Talk:KUVS-DT

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 KUVS-DT. 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) 22:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that KEZT-CD be merged into KUVS-DT because they are essentially the same station. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that while it is now only a Broadcast relay station, it has an independent history prior to 2014. This would make a merge unnecessarily complicated. Klbrain (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Promoted. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:03, 26 August 2023 (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:KUVS-DT/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tokisaki Kurumi (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First time doing a review here, haven't done everything yet. So... let's start with a list of what I currently feel could be improved:

  • The beginning of the article mentions "one of the oldest Spanish-language TV stations in California", but the text below doesn't seem to explain this specifically.
    • Reworded the lead.
  • "The move was roundly opposed by citizens' groups that felt that Concord's channel 42 should be reserved for a proposal with more local programming as well as KEMO-TV (channel 20) in San Francisco and KMUV-TV (channel 31) in Sacramento, whose formats then included many Spanish-language shows." It is mentioned that Channel 19 is also available in Spanish, so at least I'm not reading too much into it here, because the local civic groups won't lose their Spanish programs, why do they choose to oppose?
    • The civic groups wanted a local English-language station. KEMO and KMUV didn't want competition. I have reworded.
  • "not to do business with the Modesto station." With the Modesto stations? I assume this is saying that they alleged all stations.
    • No, it's referring to KLOC-TV specifically.
  • The KCBA and KREN-TV part feels a bit abrupt, maybe add something to explain it?
    • I'm trying to highlight that he was expanding his broadcasting reach beyond Modesto/Sacramento.
wikilinks
  • "broadcasting in color", might be good to have a wikilink here.
  • "Monterey Bay area"

I think these are issues that can be resolved relatively quickly, so I decide to wait for them to be resolved before putting up Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates while reading sources in the meantime. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Overall it's quite good for me. Only one instance that may need to be edited: "general-entertainment".
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): (done, see below and edit history)
    See below. The review template is a bit absurd for me when trying to make a list. Except for the issues mentioned below, every sentence can be supported.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I noticed that the Univision ownership paragraph, in the source, mentions more Spanish language programming, but in the article only mentions a decrease in Christian programming. Considering that the channel actually has English programming, I think further explanation may be necessary? Also, as an average, I'm interested in the sale price (converted to dollars), and while that may be harder to find, I'd suggest adding it if possible. Again, as a reader who doesn't know anything, I would suggest a slight mention of the channel's current language and program type situation in the Newscasts and other local programming paragraph (if possible).
    @Tokisaki Kurumi: I've reworded that section a bit. The sale price was already in there. And frankly, with a station like this, every single program is in Spanish. I also added a couple of sources too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Sources[edit]

  • Ref 1. I initially thought the FCC History Cards for KUVS-DT were FCC summaries, but they turned out to be records. That might get into the problem of using a primary source.
  • Ref 1. Additionally, I just notice that there are two application dates (3 March and 6 March) at the documentation, and while it may not be necessary to specifically state this, I feel the need to ask the nominator to explain it a little bit here?
    • March 3: date on the application. March 6: the application is received in the FCC (I believe R + F means Received and Filed?); consider it would have been mailed from California to Washington. Then there'd be another date for the announcement of this (March 10, per Broadcasting ProQuest 1285746581 / [1]). Reading History Cards can be...difficult, so I empathize here. I don't think that the use of history cards for obvious information like this is a sourcing issue.
  • Ref 3. I think the support is a bit lacking. There is a mention of becoming affiliated to other stations in 1972, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of what happened before that.
    • Did you read the middle column? The middle column has the start date. Are you sure you are calling the right ref? (Numbers did shift a bit just now)
      • So after reconfirmation, I understand that independence is a specific thing in this context, and this part is no longer in question.
  • Ref 31. I don't find what the original article said, can you provide the original sentence?
    • Last two columns on page E5: Last month, its political program "Voz y Voto" – produced locally but carried statewide – scored a coup by getting an exclusive interview with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about the special election. When spot-checking multiple-page clippings, what you seek may not be in the first page.
  • Ref 34. The source doesn't seem to say anything about the relationship between "additional subchannels" and ATSC 3.0.
    • Removed this.

Optional[edit]

  • Why does rabbitears have wikilink and other sources don't? I thought at first that there was some special format, so the sources don't have wikilinks added ...
    • The tool I use to format Newspapers.com citations (i.e. most of them) does not wikilink titles—and with good reason, as sometimes its names do not quite match for certain publications.
  • A little too many primary sources in the last section.
    • With FCC technical information, this is really common.
  • I'll double check to see if there's anything else worth mentioning on Google Books and other sources.

@Sammi Brie:. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tokisaki Kurumi: Primary sources for some of the technical information are just unavoidable in this field. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KUVS-DT; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Sammi Brie: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KUVS-DT&oldid=1200990335"