 | KEYE-TV has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 25, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from KEYE-TV appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
The term "O&O" used on this page should be explained or linked in some way... AnonMoos 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Image:Cbs 42 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.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KEYE-TV. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KEYE-TV. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 4 December 2017 (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 |
|
|
Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:07, 20 June 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. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
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). | All sources seem suitable. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. | I reviewed the one non-zero match (3.8%) found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Fine per WP:LIMITED. No copyvio/plagiarism issues found during spot checks. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Suitable. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No evidence of lack of stability. |
| 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. | Both images PD. Rationale for the logo seems reasonable. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Great work as ever, Sammi Brie. I hope the comments above are helpful; I'm happy to discuss any of them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
The result was: promotedbyHey man im josh talk 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 695 past nominations.
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC).Reply
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Good to go. Ergo Sum 15:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
