Talk:KRWG-TV/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Image

• I agree that "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text." so is PD.

Copyvio check

• No concerns from reviewing matches found by Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Nothing above 5% and matches are phrases like "The New Mexico State University" and "from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting"
• No issues found during spot checks.

Sources

• All seem appropriate.

History

• "As early as 1964," - is this early compared to the air date, or in general? The phrasing makes it sound somewhat groundbreaking.
  • Early compared to the airdate of KRWG-TV. Actually found something dating to 1963 with a grant application.
• "[In 1964] New Mexico State University (NMSU) considered establishing a public television station using the channel 12 allotment at Hatch." - I don't see the word "Hatch" in the cited source although it mentioned in the 1962 The Santa Fe New Mexican sources; can you confirm that it was indeed there?
  • Yes. Added a further source. (Allocations don't move unless the FCC lets them move. The Hatch *12 was deleted in 1978.)
• I don't see all of "However, NMSU soon found Hatch to be an unviable allocation for serving Las Cruces; the transmitter would have to be north of Las Cruces, to protect KELP-TV in El Paso, Texas, when most antennas were oriented south to El Paso. Channel 22 in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band was then assigned to Las Cruces." being supported by the cited souce. I think it needs the 1973 Las Cruces Sun-News source.
  • Fixed with an extra cite invoke.
• Spot check on "NMSU applied for a station on November 2, 1970, and received a construction permit on April 4, 1972" - no issues
• Spot check on "While construction on the transmitter facility was completed by December 1972, a shortage of engineers and delays in equipment installation kept the station from debuting for several months." - no issues

Funding

• Looks fine.

Local programming

• "Most of KRWG-TV's local programming continues to concern southern New Mexico issues." - sources aren't very old, but I wonder if it's worth adding something like "as of 2022" to give a bit of future-proofing.
  • I also don't think this is likely to change given the ownership and orientation of the station unless local programming is cut significantly..
• Spot check on "Alumni of the NMSU journalism program that worked on News22 while students at the university include Gadi Schwartz, correspondent for NBC News" - no issues.

Technical information

• Looks fine.

Lead and Infobox

• Call sign - optionally, consider adding this info into the body and citing it there (so there would be no need for the citation in the infobox)
  • Not uncommon for a call sign meaning to end up cited here, particularly in a case like this where it wasn't the first station so named. It'd probably go in the body way more organically at KRWG (FM).

I made a couple of edits suggested by scripts - please check these and rever any that are objectionable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• @BennyOnTheLoose: Everything looks good. Made a few changes to address the Hatch 12 issue and the missing cite invoke. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for the response, Sammi Brie. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2025 (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.