Talk:CHWI-DT/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) 08:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on! Will review this when I want a break from reviewing WUVN. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, technical information, images, references

All fine

Rest of the article

Had some minor grammar changes, which I did myself.
Rest all is fine.
Any expansion possible between 2014 and 2024? (or anywhere else, if possible)

Spot-check

I will check every 6th ref in general

Ref-1: against the rival Global televison network
Ref-9: running ahead of schedule
Ref-15: effectively close it's full time news bureau
Ref-20: from 580 watts to 5,800 watts
Ref-25: new style for their newscasts
Ref-31: top spot among local newscasts
Ref-37: on the condition it divest the CityTv channels
Ref-44: $1 per station
Ref-49: the new CTV Two schedule will be delivered in High Definition beginning this Fall
Ref-55: Reporter Catherine Hedge has left CHWI
Ref-61: 26-1 ... CHWI CTV2 ... 16-1)

Overall

Everything good, though might do with some expansion, as mentioned above, if possible. Ping when you are done (or think there is nothing to add). I'll do a spot-check then, and pass it, Sammi Brie. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went trawling and came up with nothing, which honestly is unsurprising to me given that I have trouble even with U.S. stations finding things to say in the last few years. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check revealed no issues either. Passing it to GA, well done, great job as always, Sammi Brie. Congratulations! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.