Talk:Nebraska Television Network/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 07:28, 13 August 2023 (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: Adog (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will take on this review, likely finishing up by Saturday, August 12, or early Sunday, August 13. I look forward to reading about another local television station! Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again Sammi Brie! You already know the drill from me, if you see anything out of the ordinary, you do not have to implement:

Prose[edit]

Lead[edit]

It consists of two full-power stations—KHGI-TV (channel 13) in Kearney, with transmitter ... Missing "a" before "transmitter".
NTV serves North Platte as well as the western half ... "as well as" to "and"?
- The unusual nature of the area served IMO justifies the wording I have. This and KLKN go together. There is a cluster of articles, possibly a GT, with NTV + KLKN + KTVG-TV + KSNB-TV + KFXL-TV. Only three Nielsen markets of 210 have this sort of split-ABC affiliation (the other two are West Michigan WOTV/WZZM and Tampa WFTS-TV/WWSB-TV).
In 1983, the Albion station was separated from the network as short-lived ... Missing word, possibly "the" before "short-lived"?
Sinclair acquired NTV at bankruptcy ... Missing "a" before "bankruptcy".
- Not exactly because "at auction" is also a thing.

History[edit]

Early years

In 1962, the FCC granted KHOL-TV permission ... "granted KHOL-TV permission" to just "permitted KHOL-TV"?

NTV

While NTV had lost one of its four high-power stations with the failed Big 8, Gordon Broadcasting made efforts ... "made efforts" to "tried"?

Addition of Fox stations; sale to Pappas

On April 1, 1994, Fant took over the operations of Hill Broadcasting Company's KTVG-TV (channel 17), an upstart independent station in Grand Island in the process of joining Fox, under a local marketing agreement (LMA), making it a sister station to the NTV stations. Omitting the comma after "Fox" seems to read a bit better, what do you think?
- Reworded because I would object except the LMA did causally lead to the Fox affiliation. That became a little clearer when I wrote up KTVG.
Blackstar was a vehicle for acquiring stations in medium- to small markets ... Should "medium- to small" be "medium-to-small" or "medium to small"?
- Nice catch. Went with the latter.
Same sentence might read better as two separate sentences: ... and switching them from their existing networks to Fox. The company stated its intent to switch the NTV stations ...
- Changed to a semicolon — there is strong causality here.
That allocation had been made ... to The allocation was made ...?
- Leaving this here because the Albion allocation issue predated NTV's involvement
... Citadel lodged a protest ... to just ... Citadel protested ...?
"in order to" to "to".

News operation[edit]

During its ownership, Pappas brought additional resources to NTV, particularly because it owned KPTM in Omaha might read better as Pappas brought additional resources to NTV during its ownership, particularly because it owned KPTM in Omaha.
In March 2018, a producer for NTV's morning newscast resigned, citing what he called Sinclair's "obvious bias" ... might be better to omit "what he called".
- Here I want to be careful because Sinclair bias is a touchy issue.

@Adog: Changed most items without a specific objection. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, hahaha! That was incredibly quick. I will read through the whole thing in a bit. Explanations are all good. Should be done within 30 to an hour if you are still up. :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

77, publisher parameter for the SEC?
91, publisher parameter for FCC?
104, missing a website or publisher parameter.
107, has a "}" at the end that needs removal.
125, should have an access date, right? There are a couple without them.
129, I cannot access the PDF for some reason, possibly deadlinked. Accessdate missing?
- I don't put access dates on history cards because they are documents dating to the early 1980s and the first card will vary based on the age of the station. LMS had two entries and I guess one is empty: try [1] and see will give you better luck. I have moved to LMS links because there's a nonzero chance CDBS is taken down for good.
130, "licensing.fcc.gov" to "Federal Communication Commissions". Also, change from website to publisher parameter like other sources?

@Adog: Done. IABot is running again, and hopefully it catches the 124/125 access dates. Those refs were added after the article was done to reflect the UHF channel change. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, the link provided does download and loads! Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments or concerns[edit]

MOS:DUPLINK, now the FCC wont let you be, since there is one in "Early years" subsection, with one appearing a couple sentences before. Pappas Telecasting Companies in subsection "Addition of Fox stations; sale to Pappas", original in subsection "NTV".
- Leaving the Pappas link in because you might not expect them to recur after 1990.
In the subsection "Early years" in "History", there is this: Built on a site 8 miles (13 km) north of Hayes Center,[22][23] Even though ... I assume comma is there purposefully, so, in that case, lowercase needed.
- Oops!
Same subsection, for the sentence: Channel 13 would lose NBC a year later in advance of the 1956 launch of KHAS-TV (channel 5). I can verify the latter half, but the former I do not know if I am reading the source right. The source does describe KHAS-TV's CBS affiliation, but not KHOL losing it. Is there another source you could include here for clarity?
- No source straight up says they lost it, but it's pretty much implied. Tried to bolster this area enough. @Adog: Everything else handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 115, access date as well.

The wow signal is coming through on this network's two stations! Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + verifiability[edit]

The article is well written! I cannot say much besides that tonight was a good read. Not much in the way of problems in grammar or sentence structure. You already noted what is good and not. The article follows a general manual of style that I have observed. The article is filled with reliable sources from a variety of publications. The reference layout is good. The spot checks were mostly good, and I will AGF the offline sources that I cannot access. No problems in the original research. Oh gosh, the copyright? Nonexistent from Earwigs peek. I did not see any problems with paraphrasing for this article, nor copyright or plagiarism.

@Sammi Brie: This was the last category from me, Sammi Brie. I will pass once the minor things are good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutrality[edit]

The article presents its content in a focused way but also focuses on the broad aspects of the news stations and network. A lot of information to take in such a nice and concise article! The article is written in a neutral tone. I did not see anything out of the ordinary. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability[edit]

The article has one image and its paperwork seems to be in check. It is very much relevant. The article is stable, not active or ongoing edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:41, 13 August 2023 (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.