Talk:KCPT/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Doing a read through. Should have a full review up this evening — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Please see below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I should have handled everything. The Union Hill issue is kind of an odd one as Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Looks good at the moment; I don't see any spelling or grammar issues in the current text, even after a second read-through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Union Hill, Kansas City is mentioned in the lead and not the body, and the relevant citations don't appear to mention Union Hill explicitly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is indeed a list of references, and that list complies with the portion of the Wikipedia manual of Style that relates to notes and references. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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). All of the references themselves appear to be to sources that meet the reliable sources guidance in the context of this television station. However, upon a read through, I'm having trouble reconciling the text of some of the sources with some of the claims that they are supporting. Some of this might be apt in part 2c, but I'll list them here for sake of clarity and convenience:
  1. The candidate states that By 1976, CSB had changed its name to Public Television 19, Inc., citing a 1976 article in The Kansas City Times. I've read through the clipping, but I can't quite find a reference to Public Television 19, Inc. in it.
    1. Bottom of the first column.
  2. The candidate states that Ultra high frequency (UHF) channel 19 was allocated to Kansas City for educational television use in 1952, citing an article from The Kansas City Times. But that article doesn't appear to mention the year 1952.
    1. Added a second ref to this.
  3. The candidate states that Two preferred cuts to the evening programming, one saying that the station's programs for adults were an unnecessary expense in a year when the board had to increase school lunch prices, citing this article. This is more a general question than an issue per se with the sourcing, but is the superintendent a member of the Board of Education? If I'm reading the source correctly, the text in the candidate seems to rely on that assumption being true.
    1. Turns out the way I wrote this requires both references. One reference mentions Reed as against and the other mentions Stubbs. Oops.
  4. The lead of the candidate states KCPT and KTBG share studios on East 31st Street in the Union Hill section of Kansas City, Missouri, but Union Hill, Kansas City is not mentioned in the body of the article, and there doesn't appear to be a direct citation for it (as far as I can tell by clicking through potentially relevant sources).

In all of these, it's possible that I missed something in the source, so please correct me if any of my observations are incorrect here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. [1] It seems that the "Union Hill neighborhood" wasn't described as such back in the 1970s. I can't see it being labeled as such until 1980! That said, the facility hasn't moved. There are also some clippings if you search KCTV and Union Hill—KCTV still uses, and is associated with, the tower at the studios that it donated to KCPT.
2c. it contains no original research. See 2b. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Looks copyvio/plagiarism-free. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Upon first read-through, this article does appear to cover all the main aspects of the topic. The funding section itself is a little short, but I think the article itself is sufficiently broad. I'm not 100% on if it's comprehensive, but that isn't required of GAs; before going to FA, I would recommend that the funding section of this article be expanded to include information from years other than 2021 (should such sourcing exist). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate more feedback on this in general. Funding sections are fairly new to public broadcasting articles. They are typically drawn from key facts in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's standardized annual financial reports. We have many especially thin articles on public TV stations that should have much, much more material to them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article is focused appropriately. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This is a bit of a nitpick, but I'm looking at the candidate article's text that says Efforts were made toward regional planning to give suburban school districts a voice in KCSD-TV's educational programming, citing a KC Star piece, and I'm not quite getting why rural districts within 60 miles of Kansas city are excluded from mention here. The source emphasizes regionalization of the station's content, but it doesn't appear to exclusively be about suburbs. Am I missing something here? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to address this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article appears to be stable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images check out A-OK. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Issues are present neither with the relevance of the images, nor their captions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. On hold pending answers to the above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues have been resolved. As for Union Hill, the explanation seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KCPT/GA1&oldid=1210539484"