Talk:WITF-TV/GA1

GA Review

Passed BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (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.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 09:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check: Very low matches using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I reviewed the top two matched (2% and 1%!) and had no concerns.

Images: Suitable rationale in place for use of the logo. The other images are CC. Positioning and captions are fine.

Edit wars: None apparent. (Reversions in Feb seem OK and not the start of an edit war.)

Sources

The "FCC History Cards for WITF-TV" citation looked incomplete but I see it's a templated reference, so OK.

The transclusions of this template might need to be replaced soon due to changes at the FCC, so I'd be interested to see if you would rather see the new format be {{tlx|FCC LMS letter|letterid=57ec94c2-3c4f-4bde-ba86-a671dd0b7bc3|hcards=yes|callsign=WITF-TV}} (in each case, the 5- or 6-digit letter ID is replaced by a hex string) or trying to figure out if a {{Cite web}} wrapper would be more suitable.

I wasn't familiar with rabbitears.info, but looking at the FAQ there, it seems like a suitable source.
Spotchecks on sources 3 (Lancaster New Era); 13 (Miller); 22 (Welker); 30 (Sefton); and 32 (Fybush) were all good.

History

"adjacent to [[" - remove, or add in what/where.

Oops, that's me. Fixed.

Local programming and initiatives

"WITF produces a number of local programs.." - doesn't give an idea od how many, e.g. several, dozens, hundreds? (But OK to retain if there aren't sources)

Added "several" which is probably better

3/4 paras start with "WITF..." - consider amending at least one for variety. As the paras are short, perhaps the first and second could be combined?

Done.

Second para is lacking citation(s).

This was added after GAN and has been cross-checked. One part was salvageable with reference

Technical information

Channels in the table are in the format 33.1 whereas the source has 33-1 format. I'm guessing this is how we typically record these in such articles.

Yes, the two are interchangeable. I personally see dots more than dashes.

"made history" seems to be over-egging it a bit, but can be retained.

It is a bit much, so I've dialed it back.

Infobox and Lead

"(PBS) member television station licensed" is something of a MOS:SEAOFBLUE, but I appreciate that there might not be suitable alternatives.

This is why we updated the standards for these types of leads—SEAOFBLUE issues at another GAs. This one never got the treatment, but I've rectified that now.

The Local programming and initiatives section doesn't seem to be summarised in the lead; consider adding something.

Done.

I made a couple of very minor edits, which I hope are uncontroversial. Thanks for your work on the article, Sammi Brie. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose. I've made the changes. Also would like to hear your thoughts on the FCC letter template. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, Sammi Brie. I don't really have any strong views on the FCC letter template. Ideally I'd like to see a bit more detail about the citation on the article page than the current one gives, but as long as it takes me to the place where the info is verified then that's fine. I'm satisifed that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Well done! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2022 (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.