Talk:WDRB

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the 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:

1. 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.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:Source list 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.
4. 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. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (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:WDRB/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Here is my short review, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Arconning: All handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

• No issues.

History

• shareholders for what would become ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV, shareholders in what would become the ill-fated Kansas City independent station KCIT-TV.
  • Woof, someone put a SEAOFBLUE there. Fixed.
• in 1977 to the Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company (which later became the Cowles Media Company) in 1977., remove the second mention of in 1977.
• Louisville athletics, I believe "athletics" should be wikilinked to Sport of athletics?
  • In US parlance, "athletics" is likelier to refer to an entire sports program than to what we would call "track and field".

News operation

• No issues.

Technical information

• No issues.

Images

• Images have proper licensing and are relevant to the article

Refs

• Random ref check: 7, 15, 22, 29, 30, 34, 40, 54. All good.
• Earwig seems okay.

Misc.

• No ongoing edit war, focus and broad information about the topic, neutral.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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 Theleekycauldron talk 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Kentucky TV station gained industry attention after it criticized the overuse of the term "breaking news"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130608093241/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/louisville-station-stops-using-breaking-news_b92526
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George Hunter Cary

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 696 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2024 (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: Looks good. Nice work. A minor point: I may be missing it, but I'm not seeing the word "overuse" in quotes in the article. Any particular reason why it is in quotes for the hook? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Yeah, that didn't work out, BeanieFan11. Nixed the quotes in the hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    • BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)