Talk:WFXR/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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this and WWCW, it'll be nice to see another GT! Plus, a ton of WikiCup points for you, hopefully for the fourth round! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, just a few comments on the prose, I'll get to WWCW in a bit. Very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: All comments and outstanding issues responded to on both GANs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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.	Southwestern Virginia is very mountainous and the difficulties faced by UHF stations at the time due to the lack of television sets manufactured with built-in UHF tuners (which was not made a requirement until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the All-Channel Receiver Act in 1961) were magnified by the area's rugged terrain. - that's a long sentence, I suggest splitting it Someone added a little more sludge here than I'd like. It needed rewording and another source. The full FCC affirmed the permit grant to RCB in March 1984. - what is "the full FCC"? All the departments at once? I'd be surprised if the Space Bureau formally OK'ed this station! The actual commissioners. You'd go from initial comparative hearing/examiner to review board to full FCC. Reworded. In December, the city of Roanoke sued the station... - in a section that names over five stations, "the station" is rather confusing- best to just use the name Fixed ...he had been approved by bankruptcy courts or the FCC to buy... - or? Not and? This is intended. In the WVFT/WJPR case and that of WKCH-TV, the FCC had not yet approved the license transfer, but bankruptcy court had approved the transfer to Brumlik. The FCC had already approved his acquisition of the Macon station. ...owned by UHF television pioneer Milton Grant. - false title Fixed Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Is there a reason for the many invisible comments throughout? I use the invaluable PressPass to handle the formatting of Newspapers.com citations. That's a default option for the day of week which can be useful when reading newspaper articles and is not supported as a parameter. No fiction or words to watch. Substation table is appropriate, lead is well-written. No MOS violations.
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.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	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).	Most citations are to various local newspapers via newspapers.com, no concerns there. Others include official FCC reports and information sites like RabbitEars- also all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't see a need for a thorough spotcheck, article is well-cited to varying sources. No OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the article's history, news operations, and technical info- all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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 are properly PD/CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.