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

Reviewer: Aoidh (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this over the next day or so. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Please see the comments below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose comments[edit]

• Some of the section headers in the History section have a timeline of years (1995–2006) while others do not (The independent years) can the years be included in each relevant section header for consistency?
  • Done.

Construction, land mobile dispute, and STV years[edit]

• In actuality, the owner was not Clint Murchison but Clyde A. Murchison, whom a 1982 news article described as Clint's great-nephew. could the paper the article was in (AJC) be included in the prose for context?
  • Done.
• However, its arrival was not a complete start-up for a myriad of technical reasons. I'm not quite sure what "a complete start-up" means in this context?
  • Reworded.

The independent years[edit]

• ...an initial agreement reached to sell the station to the RBP Corporation, a Massachusetts concern, but no transaction was consummated. I had to look up what a concern was in this context because I was unfamiliar with the term. If this is referring to Concern (business) could that perhaps be wikilinked for others unfamiliar with that term?
  • Simply reworded.
• WVEU featured an eclectic mix, a function of being the "poor cousin" of Atlanta independent television. If "poor cousin" is a quote could it be attributed to the source along with "quicker picker-upper"? Who considered the station to be these things?
  • Added author information.

CBS 69?[edit]

• The section header for WUPA#CBS 69? might need to be reworded; per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, section headings should not be phrased as a question.
  • Changed to "Almost a CBS affiliate"
• it was an unexpected windfall. since the deal didn't go through should that perhaps be it would be an unexpected windfall or it would have been an unexpected windfall?
  • CBS went through and bought it.

UPN affiliation (1995–2006)[edit]

• Despite the upheaval, WVEU came out with something just as valuable to its future. This is probably just my personal opinion but I feel like that sentence could be removed entirely and it not affect the article. Who says it's just as valuable?
  • Reworded.

@Sammi Brie: I spot checked about 10 or so of the sources and there were no verifiability concerns. The only issues I could find were the minor points above. - Aoidh (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: Ready for your consideration. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Y Good to go. - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]