# Talk:KTIV

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to a list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. 70.48.216.22 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on KTIV. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ktiv.com/CustomPages/KTIVHistory.cfm
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.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:KTIV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking this review, will get to reading through it right now. Looks great so far, we'll see how it goes! Utopes (talk / cont) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Hi there! I wanted to let you know that I've since finished the review; hopefully the suggested steps are actionable and reasonable. Thanks for your work on the article! Please let me know if you have any questions about anything. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: I've reworded as much as I can. I've tried to clarify the footage section, but the meaning of it is the same. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes Any update on this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: yep, will be going over the changes either today or tomorrow! Thanks for your patience. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes what is still pending? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Thank you again for your patience! Everything outstanding has been resolved, except for one final issue that was in the verifiability section, but needed a further reword as well. This looks to be the final change possibly, so thanks for sticking with it! Utopes (talk / cont) 09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Alright! Here we go, the review now begins:
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"with the added wrinkle that the KCOM Broadcasting Company would not only give KSCJ an option to acquire half the company but would sell off KCOM." - there should be a replacement to the word "wrinkle" here. The bias of the sentence does obfuscate exactly what's happening, through the phrases "not only" and "but would" in the instructions. Preferably this can be a direct statement about what KSCJ asked for.
 Done, made more clear. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
"This cleared the way for the FCC to grant a construction permit on January 20, 1954." - exactly what cleared the way? Hopefully in revising the sentence before this, this part becomes more clear in turn.
The merger described just before.
Thank you for clarifying the "this",  Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
"Footage from the crash became among the most-viewed news clips of 1989, in part because technical issues spoiled the station's—and NBC's—exclusive." - this sentence could use a rewrite; the lack of a reference here, as well as the use of "in part because", makes it seem like the writer is taking an OR detour to explain why it was among the most-viewed news clips of the year.  The use of the "the station's, and NBC's, exclusive" also could probably be made more direct.
It's all cited to that big Broadcasting article (meant to reply to this and didn't). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 Partly done. Thank you for adding the section that states the footage was intended for NBC and its affiliates only. That does clear up how the two can be related. It's fine to keep this cited to the big Broadcasting article. That said, the other half stemmed from the segment that said: "in part because technical issues spoiled the station's—and NBC's—exclusive.". I don't think this needs to be said here, as it seems like the paragraph is diagnosing the problem with its own explanation. The facts are that the footage was intended only for NBC and its affiliates, but it got out. The synthesis is that "one reason it got popular was because of this...". I feel like this part (the effect) of the sentence is redundant to what is being said in the next (the cause), or maybe put the effect after the cause is presented. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes I've reworded this again. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit; I'd say that's everything then!  Done Utopes (talk / cont) 06:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
"Under the ownership of American Family Broadcasting in the 1980s, KTIV improved its news department and pushed past a once-dominant KCAU-TV to become the highest-rated station in Sioux City, a position it has retained" - the scope of the "retaining" is not incredibly clear here. Did it become the highest-rating station immediately in the 1980s or did it push past some time later? The word "retain" is only used once in the article, and it's not clear how long it has retained this position for.
Thank you for clarifying "ever since", putting a confirmable timetable on this assertion.  Done Utopes (talk / cont) 09:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"However, by that point, the company had yet to announce where its studios would be located." - by what point?
Combining the previous sentence and removing the by-point puts the time frame into better scale, thank you. This is  Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"In order to get the signal past a tree" - unclear what tree is being referred to here.
Hard to say much more than this based on the source.
Fair enough, I wish the setting could be better laid out but that looks to be the best we have. Making mention that the tree was blocking the way, hence needing to raise the antenna, solves this, so  Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"Ken Wayman, the station's first news director in the 1950s, was also the first reporter to take a still camera into an Iowa courtroom; he won a national award from the Radio Television News Directors Association." - are these two related? What was the national award for, and did it have to deal with act of bringing the still camera into the courtroom?
Yes, it did. The source doesn't say all that much more.
Thank you for clarifying the award was for his coverage, this is now  Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article is written neutrally!
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable as it gets!
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The appropriate images are used here.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Great article! Just a few things that still need adjustments/improvements, but besides that well done! I'm looking forward to hearing back.
That should be everything! Well done, passing this now. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)