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

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 02:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Good work on this article! I'll be reviewing this article, I will provide feedback and suggest improvements to the article if necessary. This is also my first GA review, so please bear with me. :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing concerning according to Earwig's Copyright Detector, pass!

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No recent edit warring, passes this criteria.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Good work on this article! I have a few comments here:

• I spotchecked 17 random sources, all but one is not concerning. The one concern is under WFOR-TV#Move to channel 4, "Fox's announcement that it would affiliate with twelve TV stations owned by New World Communications in May 1994 touched off two and a half years of affiliation switches in markets across the United States, much like the one that had affected the Miami and West Palm Beach markets in 1989." I know this is covered in 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, but I feel like it should be covered in a reliable source there...

Fair point. I added the Bill Carter New York Times source after "...in May 1994" given it is not market-specific (as Miami was initially not affected).

• In WFOR-TV#WFOR-TV: "2017 brought an expansion of WFOR's morning newscast with a new 4:30 a.m. half-hour as well as a 7 p.m. newscast..." I feel like this could be re-worded to "WFOR's morning newscast was expanded in 2017 with a new 4:30 a.m. half-hour as well as a 7 p.m. newscast...".

Because they were in different dayparts, I opted for "WFOR's newscasts were expanded in 2017 with a new 4:30 a.m. morning half-hour and a newscast at 7 p.m.; both additions occurred alongside the arrival of Hurricane Irma."

• In WFOR-TV#Channel 6 in Miami: "The station then took the call sign WCIX-TV." – why not add the specific date for it?
• In WFOR-TV#Move to channel 4: "The move was an upgrade for CBS and a downgrade for NBC, as channel 6 alone could not adequately reach 15 to 25 percent of the market; WCIX had a reputation of being one of the lowest-rated CBS affiliates for large events, such as the Super Bowl and television miniseries."

I feel like this sentence should be split and slightly re-worded into "The move was an upgrade for CBS and a downgrade for NBC, as channel 6 alone did not adequately reach 15 to 25 percent of the market. Additionally, WCIX had a reputation of being one of the lowest-rated CBS affiliates for large events, such as the Super Bowl and television miniseries."

Done. :)

• I have no other concerns; images check out, no copyright violations, and it is verifiable other than the one concern I have above! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good! @Tails Wx: and also a courtesy ping to @Sammi Brie: Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The date of the call sign being assigned is not on the cards because it was the first call sign selected, @Tails Wx. I did add it from the newspaper clippings. This should reconcile the remaining issues. Thank you for taking on this mammoth as your first GA review; I hope that this helps you as you start reviewing more articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alright, I'm satisfied with my suggestions addressed above. Therefore, I'm comfortable to promote this to a GA. Congratulations, Sammi Brie and Nathan Obral, and excellent work on this article! (And no problem, Sammi Brie! This GA review will definitely help me in reviewing more articles in the future. :)) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 21:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]