Jump to content

Talk:KSEE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]

KSEE → KSEE-TV – To allow for disambiguation page. KSEE is also ICAO identifier for Gillespie Field. Thadius856 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KMJ-TV+1970+logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:KMJ-TV+1970+logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KSEE 24 80s logo.JPG

[edit]

Image:KSEE 24 80s logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KSEE 24 NBC logo.JPG

[edit]

Image:KSEE 24 NBC logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant trimming of Former Staff section

[edit]

I have removed most of the former staff section. WP:NLIST requires that all people on lists of this type 1) be notable enough to be included in prose in the article, and 2) have a reliable source (or own article) that confirms that they were on-air personality on this station. Since none of the people without Wikipages had a reliable source, I have removed all of them. If anyone has sources that verify that these people worked for KSEE and that they are notable enough for inclusion, then those entries could be re-added. For prior discussions on this topic, please see WT:WikiProject Television Stations and this Village Pump discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KSEE. 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:

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) 20:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:KSEE/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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. The article is written with a clear, concise style. Sections are ordered correctly in a way that does not strain the reader. Ran readability test on the article with the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Score, and Smog Index all between a 5.4-5.7 grade level.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Reviewed words to watch, checked sections, layout is not obstructive to the reader. Lead section gives a nice overview of the article without going into too much detail.
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. Sources are mostly newspapers which for the time period is not unreasonable. Was unable to find other sources that were not primary or unacceptable on Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books.
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). In-line citations are correctly applied to the sources. There are a few cases where a sentence doesn't have an in-line citation but it is obviously covered in the next sentence and it's in-line citation. I wouldn't change this because you would just have the same in-line citation on two or three sentences in the same paragraph which are focused on one topic.
2c. it contains no original research. Did not observe original research
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Used the copyvio tool and Google. Was unable to find evidence of plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article is focused on it's topic without going out of scope.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article does go into detail but it is not unnecessary or fluff. There is a lot of detail in sections but it's condensed and brief.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Tone and content of article does not appear to be favoring one view point or biased.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article does not have a recent history of edit warring or massive changes expect changes which were made to improve this article in 2022 and early 2023.
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. There are two images in this article. One is released under a Creative Common license and the other is the logo for the station and has the correct tagging.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Image in the article is relevant to the history of the TV station and is captioned properly.
7. Overall assessment. Well researched and written article, was a breeze to review. Very in-depth and accurate research for a topic that is not the easiest to find material for. I enjoyed going over all the newspaper articles and seeing how well things were cited, which is a personal favorite activity of mine. All the issues that I found were just personal things of mine but the article was written quite well so any concerns I had about in-line citations was moot. Two sources were flagged by one of my scripts but I have no idea why since the majority of the sources all came from newspapers.com so I'm assuming it's a bug in the script. All state owned sources were appropriate and were limited to the FCC, which for a TV station is appropriate. I was glad to see that all the templates at the bottom of the page were the correct ones to have.
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

[edit]
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 00:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KSEE; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hooks are both interesting and attributed to reliable sources, I verified the included information, though on a personal note would prefer ALT1 over ALT0. Article was improved to GA just yesterday and is long enough and has no major issues. QPQ is done. The Night Watch (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KSEE&oldid=1201397733"