Talk:KATU (TV)

KATU (TV) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 4, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from KATU (TV) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 25 years after an attempt to explode a whale went awry, the Oregon TV station that filmed it regularly fielded requests for its footage?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/KATU (TV).

Wikipedia

Oregon High‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KATU. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

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) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KATU. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161227084350/http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/Auth_Files/1562915.pdf to http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/Auth_Files/1562915.pdf

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) 05:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Generalissima (talk) 02:33, 4 January 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:KATU (TV)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for forgetting about this. From the top;

Criteria 1: Well-written[edit]

Lede[edit]

I don't see any prose issues here! I'm curious why the Sinclair ownership is cited, since this is elaborated upon further in the article? This is entirely personal taste, but it might be better to put the cite into the Ownership line of the infobox, to keep superfluous cites out of the lede.

History[edit]

Very well written prose. I don't see any problems here.

News operation[edit]

Also well-written; I don't see any issues.

Technical information[edit]

Ditto, no problems here and information is presented well.

1A: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
1B: it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research[edit]

I checked a few random sources. (Why does Genealogybank own all these papers archives? Their tool is so slow and clunky.)

5 ("Seattle Company Given TV Edge". The Columbian. Vancouver, Washington. UPI) Checks out.
11 ( Murphy, Francis (September 30, 1961).) Yep, this source checks out. You could probably milk this source for a bit more information about the transmitter station.
24 ( "Consent to Transfer", FCC) Checks out, but you should probably specify this is by the FCC in the cite.
28 (Baker, Doug (December 28, 1976) Checks out, including the stranglehold quote.
61 ( "RabbitEars TV Query for KATU". RabbitEars.) Sure is a database. Everything checks out.

Every paragraph and claim is correctly cited inline. I don't see any evidence of OR or copyvio (Earwig checks out.) All sources appear reliable.

2a: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2b: 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);
2c: it contains no original research; and
2d: it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Criteria 3: broad in its coverage[edit]

This presents a very good overall history of the station, but it stays free of any cruft or tangents.

3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Criteria 4: Neutral[edit]

Preserves NPOV.

Criteria 5: Stable[edit]

As far as I can see, no edit warring!

Criteria 6: Illustrated[edit]

Logo is in public domain, all three images are CC licensed. Good to go on that front; all appear useful.

6a: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
6b: media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

General review[edit]

I'm confident putting my seal of approval that this passes the Good Article criteria. Good job, and apologies again for my tardiness on the review. Generalissima (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions