Talk:WZZM/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Here are my comments^^ Arconning (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning Done. I have some heavy RL right now, so clip scouring is not my highest priority. I do have additional material in GenealogyBank as well, but I can do that at any time in the coming days. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

• in order protect, in order to protect.
• While the station continues to be competitive, add comma at the end.
• have given the overall edge to WOOD-TV, might be too informal. Otherwise, have given WOOD-TV the overall edge.

History

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC), add comma at the end.
• and presided, add over.
• and Holland also were, and Holland were also.
• with construction of the station., add the after with.
• Gannett sent Argyle the, Gannett sent Argyle to the.
  • You misread this one: the stations were sent to Argyle.
• until being removed, until it was removed.

The Battle Creek–Kalamazoo problem

• I suggest somehow splitting the first paragraph into two at least, so that it could probably be read better by other viewers.
• from their schedule, pluralize schedules.
• brokerage agreement by, change by to in.
• in June 1992 when WOTV became WOOD-TV., add comma after 1992.

News operation

• three hours on Saturdays, add comma at the end.
• revenue leader for most its, revenue leader for most of its.
• Price, a Republican, wikilink Republican.
• changes in the newsroom., possibly change in to to.

Technical information

• No issues, pass.

Images

• Images have proper licenses and have proper captions. Pass.

Refs

• Earwig picks up like 2%, nothing weird at first glance. Pass
• Manual check, everything seems okay! Pass.

Spotchecks

• References 5, 30, and 41 are okay for random checks.
• All references come from pretty reliable sources.
• If you could find online links for the sources that don't have them, that would be nice. Though a source is a source, pass.

Misc.

• No ongoing edit war, pretty broad information about the topic, neutral. Pass.

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