Talk:KTVH-DT

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KTVH-DT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:KTVH-DT/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

• @Lee Vilenski: Responded to the first batch of issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Links

Prose

Lede

• Seems a bit weird to have the channels in brackets - can we not put these organically in the prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• On that, channels aren't universal - is it worth saying where the range of these are? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• As you know, your KMEX review led to lots of talk about lead paragraphs in this topic area. Lots...and lots...and lots. The way we mention channels now in the lead sentence was developed as consensus to try and lighten up as much of the lede as possible.

I've tried to remove the (channel X) in the lead section about stations that aren't primarily discussed on this page. (Note that sometimes in the body, a link with parentheses after it is intended as a signal that some other station in the general area now has the call sign and they should not be confused — e.g. the "KTGF (channel 16)" link later absolutely needs that!)

Point 2: We have Pan-American television frequencies, but linking that is some fierce overkill.

• Long the only full-service commercial - long? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

• In 1997, a possible threat of disaffiliation from NBC opened the door for Sunbelt Communications Company, later changed to Intermountain West Communications Company, to purchase the station; under IWCC, the station expanded geographically and secured the NBC affiliation in the larger Great Falls market. - this is quite the sentence. Split. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

General

• Link VHF. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

• After the latter amended its application to specify channel 12, both parties were granted construction permits on February 13, 1957, rejecting a proposal to remove channel 12 from Helena and move it to Bozeman. - can we reorganise this sentence? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

• There's a few instances where a sentence should stop, but then has another clause or two. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can you point me to a few? I did reflow a handful of other sentences.

• wrote the FCC, - wrote to the freaking FCC presumably. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

• decision had "reduce[d] our income materially".[20 - I feel like you could say this without the quote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

• Former Satilites is unsourced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the owner of a Montana TV station changed the name of his company because he was asked why his license plate read SUNBELT? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140108092801/http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/norm-clarke/tv-owner-jim-rogers-has-second-battle-cancer "Sunbelt’s title was changed to Intermountain West Communications Co. about five years ago, he said, when he came out of a Montana restaurant and someone asked him “why I had the name ‘Sunbelt’ on my Lincoln when this ain’t a Sun Belt (state). I changed it.”
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tornado Cash

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 17:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC).

• Starting the review shortly. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - recently promoted to GA, and meets length criteria. Article is well sourced and I do not see issues with tone. Earwig shows no copyvio issues. Hook is used in the article and is cited. It is sourced to a local newspaper and says a 'blog' but is more of a column by a named author within the newspaper. So, I believe this is alright. Hook is interesting but, I would encourage the nominator to see if they would want to reword the hook. Currently seems a tad verbose, but, that might just be me. If the nominator wants to persist with this hook wording, I will yield to them. QPQ is done. This is almost there. Ktin (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Ktin: I tried to figure out a more compact way to word this and fell short. Any ideas? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the original hook is too long. It seems pretty straightforward to me. At 127 characters it's also at most at the middle in terms of length, considering we tend to have hooks that have 150+ characters. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Marking this as approved. Nice work as always Sammi Brie! Ktin (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)