Jump to content

Talk:Nebraska Television Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:KHGI-TV)

Merge

[edit]

KHGI and KHGI-TV are 2 articles about the same station. Merge them. CoolKatt number 99999 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed KHGI into a redirect to this article. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIBW is also a station west of there with a W in it's callsign instead of a K! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec911 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

The note about the weatherman getting a cheap watch and a boot out the door seems to come from comments on a blog. The comments seem somewhat facetious. While there may be some basis in reality this station is cheap, I don't think the comment was meant to be taken as fact.--Echobase 2000 13:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On-Air Personalities

[edit]

I think that this sections needs to have one item per person. Having it in paragraph form is a little hard to read. Also, maybe having alphabatized by last name may be another good help. I didn't want to edit without seeing if other people would agree.

WINQ 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping it in paragraph form keeps the clutter down.

Have you seen some of the other TV stations and their alumni listings? Some, like KSNT-TV and KTKA-TV, go on and on. The shortening to paragraphs, with just a mention of a name, makes it more succinct.

[[User:Don1962] 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KHGI-TV. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 07:28, 13 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:Nebraska Television Network/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will take on this review, likely finishing up by Saturday, August 12, or early Sunday, August 13. I look forward to reading about another local television station! Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again Sammi Brie! You already know the drill from me, if you see anything out of the ordinary, you do not have to implement:

Prose

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • It consists of two full-power stations—KHGI-TV (channel 13) in Kearney, with transmitter ... Missing "a" before "transmitter".
  • NTV serves North Platte as well as the western half ... "as well as" to "and"?
    • The unusual nature of the area served IMO justifies the wording I have. This and KLKN go together. There is a cluster of articles, possibly a GT, with NTV + KLKN + KTVG-TV + KSNB-TV + KFXL-TV. Only three Nielsen markets of 210 have this sort of split-ABC affiliation (the other two are West Michigan WOTV/WZZM and Tampa WFTS-TV/WWSB-TV).
  • In 1983, the Albion station was separated from the network as short-lived ... Missing word, possibly "the" before "short-lived"?
  • Sinclair acquired NTV at bankruptcy ... Missing "a" before "bankruptcy".
    • Not exactly because "at auction" is also a thing.

History

[edit]

Early years

  • In 1962, the FCC granted KHOL-TV permission ... "granted KHOL-TV permission" to just "permitted KHOL-TV"?

NTV

  • While NTV had lost one of its four high-power stations with the failed Big 8, Gordon Broadcasting made efforts ... "made efforts" to "tried"?

Addition of Fox stations; sale to Pappas

  • On April 1, 1994, Fant took over the operations of Hill Broadcasting Company's KTVG-TV (channel 17), an upstart independent station in Grand Island in the process of joining Fox, under a local marketing agreement (LMA), making it a sister station to the NTV stations. Omitting the comma after "Fox" seems to read a bit better, what do you think?
    • Reworded because I would object except the LMA did causally lead to the Fox affiliation. That became a little clearer when I wrote up KTVG.
  • Blackstar was a vehicle for acquiring stations in medium- to small markets ... Should "medium- to small" be "medium-to-small" or "medium to small"?
    • Nice catch. Went with the latter.
  • Same sentence might read better as two separate sentences: ... and switching them from their existing networks to Fox. The company stated its intent to switch the NTV stations ...
    • Changed to a semicolon — there is strong causality here.
  • That allocation had been made ... to The allocation was made ...?
    • Leaving this here because the Albion allocation issue predated NTV's involvement
  • ... Citadel lodged a protest ... to just ... Citadel protested ...?
  • "in order to" to "to".

News operation

[edit]
  • During its ownership, Pappas brought additional resources to NTV, particularly because it owned KPTM in Omaha might read better as Pappas brought additional resources to NTV during its ownership, particularly because it owned KPTM in Omaha.
  • In March 2018, a producer for NTV's morning newscast resigned, citing what he called Sinclair's "obvious bias" ... might be better to omit "what he called".
    • Here I want to be careful because Sinclair bias is a touchy issue.

@Adog: Changed most items without a specific objection. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, hahaha! That was incredibly quick. I will read through the whole thing in a bit. Explanations are all good. Should be done within 30 to an hour if you are still up. :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • 77, publisher parameter for the SEC?
  • 91, publisher parameter for FCC?
  • 104, missing a website or publisher parameter.
  • 107, has a "}" at the end that needs removal.
  • 125, should have an access date, right? There are a couple without them.
  • 129, I cannot access the PDF for some reason, possibly deadlinked. Accessdate missing?
    • I don't put access dates on history cards because they are documents dating to the early 1980s and the first card will vary based on the age of the station. LMS had two entries and I guess one is empty: try [1] and see will give you better luck. I have moved to LMS links because there's a nonzero chance CDBS is taken down for good.
  • 130, "licensing.fcc.gov" to "Federal Communication Commissions". Also, change from website to publisher parameter like other sources?

@Adog: Done. IABot is running again, and hopefully it catches the 124/125 access dates. Those refs were added after the article was done to reflect the UHF channel change. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, the link provided does download and loads! Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments or concerns

[edit]
  • MOS:DUPLINK, now the FCC wont let you be, since there is one in "Early years" subsection, with one appearing a couple sentences before. Pappas Telecasting Companies in subsection "Addition of Fox stations; sale to Pappas", original in subsection "NTV".
    • Leaving the Pappas link in because you might not expect them to recur after 1990.
  • In the subsection "Early years" in "History", there is this: Built on a site 8 miles (13 km) north of Hayes Center,[22][23] Even though ... I assume comma is there purposefully, so, in that case, lowercase needed.
    • Oops!
  • Same subsection, for the sentence: Channel 13 would lose NBC a year later in advance of the 1956 launch of KHAS-TV (channel 5). I can verify the latter half, but the former I do not know if I am reading the source right. The source does describe KHAS-TV's CBS affiliation, but not KHOL losing it. Is there another source you could include here for clarity?
  • Ref 115, access date as well.

Well written + verifiability

[edit]

The article is well written! I cannot say much besides that tonight was a good read. Not much in the way of problems in grammar or sentence structure. You already noted what is good and not. The article follows a general manual of style that I have observed. The article is filled with reliable sources from a variety of publications. The reference layout is good. The spot checks were mostly good, and I will AGF the offline sources that I cannot access. No problems in the original research. Oh gosh, the copyright? Nonexistent from Earwigs peek. I did not see any problems with paraphrasing for this article, nor copyright or plagiarism.

@Sammi Brie: This was the last category from me, Sammi Brie. I will pass once the minor things are good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutrality

[edit]

The article presents its content in a focused way but also focuses on the broad aspects of the news stations and network. A lot of information to take in such a nice and concise article! The article is written in a neutral tone. I did not see anything out of the ordinary. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

[edit]

The article has one image and its paperwork seems to be in check. It is very much relevant. The article is stable, not active or ongoing edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:41, 13 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 Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 18:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nebraska Television Network; 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: The article meets all the requirements for a DYK. Both hooks are very interesting, but I think the original is slightly more interesting. — Golden talk 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nebraska_Television_Network&oldid=1204227269"