Talk:WTIC-TV/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 03:07, 1 May 2023 (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. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

Earwig says 2.9%, just quotes and coincidental phrases.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

Almost there - just a few quibbles with grammar, links, etc. Two minor issues with citations not fully backing the claims. On hold for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments[edit]

I would have a wikilink to sister station in the second sentence.
- Not doing this mostly to avoid a SEAOFBLUE with all the links in the lead sentences.
Link full power to List of North American broadcast station classes#TV (unless there's a better link)
In source 2, I don't see any mention of it being a construction permit (rather than what I would naively assume to be an operating permit)
- That is unquestionably an application for a construction permit, the way that the FCC worked/works. Step 1: Apply. Step 2, if you're not the only one: Comparative hearing. Step 3: the FCC gives someone a construction permit. Step 4: build the station and sign it on.
It was intended... is an unwieldy sentence and should be split into two.
Link Rattlesnake Mountain and mention its location
..one more surprise was in store... is rather colloquial.
Might be worth a sentence explaining what the change in FCC rules was.
- Gets a bit technical, but I did add a source here and reword a bit.
Wikilink WTXX-TV to WCCT-TV#WTXX: independent (1982–1995)
WTIC-TV signed on... Another run-on sentence.
Wikilink Fox in its first occurrence after the lede.
Might be worth using {{inflation}} for the 1996 sale price.
Worth mentioning the pending sale of Tegna in the prose.
- The Tegna sale is pretty much dead. It is intended that some standard prose will be included in articles when that sale note from the infobox is removed. However, that cannot be carried out until at least May 22 when the deal formally expires.
  - Might be worth a sentence or two in the prose for context if it appears on DYK before then, but otherwise it can wait.
The sentence However, it was nearly five years... is awkwardly worded - it makes it sound like the merger caused the delay, not ended it.
Mention Beth Carroll's former channel.
Cite 68 is a dead link with no archive.
- Replaced with an offline source.
Since it's a single sentence, the analog-to-digital conversion might be better mentioned in the history section. Additionally, the source does not actually mention the cutoff date given in the article, nor does it specifically confirm that WTIC-TV shut down its analog signal on that day. (Also, do we know when the station started digital broadcasting?)
- Turns out WTIC was a latecomer to DTV for a station of its size, so this was a good catch. I have several standard references I've used there as well.
  - Looks good. The new paragraph doesn't actually say that to do so is the conversion to digital - I'd recommend explicitly saying that.
I don't seen any need for access dates for Newspapers.com sources. These are images of previously-published newspapers, and the access date shouldn't be relevant.
- I use a utility that generates the citation with them. While I understand your thinking, I also know that I got comments almost in the opposite sense on another GA today, so I'd rather keep them.

@Pi.1415926535: Mostly done. I've objected to a few proposed changes on specific grounds, but most have been made. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Two final suggestions above, but I won't hold up GA over that. Nice work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this appearing on DYK too soon — I have a crush of pages that will be going there. But rest assured that this issue is on my radar to be handled a unit of analysis higher than this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot checks[edit]

1: Looks good, supports the claim of pending sale
76: Looks good, supports the table. RabbitEars seems to be reliable based on our article.
26: Looks good, supports the cited sentence. This, as well as several other citations, have archive links only for one of multiple pages; I would recommend archiving the second pages for completeness.
65: Looks good, supports the cited sentence.
69: Looks good, supports the cited sentence.