Talk:KVDA/GA1

GA review

Passed. IAWW (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2025 (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.

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. IAWW (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

History

noting that Nueva Vista had been loaned money by Telemundo to build channel 60 in exchange for pledging all of its stock to the company: I'm a bit confused by this surely if Nueva Vista "pledged all of its stock to the company", then Telemundo would own Nueva Vista outright?

The FCC granted the transfer in August 1990, finding that Dávila had been the principal party making decisions as to the station's construction: I think be a bit more explicit as to why this meant Gonzalez's allegations were ruled incorrect

On October 11, 2001, NBC acquired the Telemundo network, including KVDA, from Sony and Liberty Media for $1.98 billion (increasing to $2.7 billion by the sale's closure) and the assumption of $700 million in debt, in an equal cash and stock split by NBC's then-parent General Electric

Be clearer that Telemundo was $700 million in debt when NBC bought it (assuming that is the case)
"in an equal cash and stock split": A split of what between whom?
I'm sure this is probably trivial to understand for someone who is familiar with reading about these complex financial deals, but it's difficult as someone who hasn't. Any extra clarity in this sentence would be massively appreciated.
- Frankly, there was undue detail here, so I've slimmed it down and added a ref for support of the 2002 close date. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

under time brokerage agreements, though NBCUniversal retained the licenses to both stations: "though" is contrasting, but isn't NBC retaining the license the reason why it's a "time brokerage" agreement? If so, there isn't a contrast here.

News operation

Looks good :)

Rest

Looks good :)

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

Only a few minor issues noted in suggestions.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

All local newspapers, tv news, reliable books or sources from official governing bodies. Well done for collecting all the sourcing on this article, there are a lot of offline newspapers, dense records and even a Spanish source. IAWW (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The offline papers are in NewsBank. If I were doing this now, they might be clipped from GenealogyBank, but San Antonio paper was not fully available until March 2024 (we had the Light but not the Express-News, and now we do). It is generally faster for me to do full-text search in NewsBank if the paper is in both places for a given time period. I am planning a project in San Antonio that will have some clipped paper. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

[4c]: Y

[11]: Doesn't support "increasing to $2.7 billion by the sale's closure". or "The acquisition was finalized on April 12, 2002".

[13]: Y

[14]: Y

[26]: Y

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Earwig finds nothing, I didn't find any issues on the spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y

Covers the whole TV station's lifespan

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media clock

No image relating to their news operation?

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

[2], [4] are missing a publisher and book/journal name

[6] and [7] the only references missing an archive link

There is some inconsistent linking of publishers.

@It is a wonderful world: That should be everything. I try to link the publisher in offline article references generally, as a note. Thank you for the speedy turnaround of so many good reviews. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie No worries. I made one edit to the article to change something I didn't think was sufficiently clear, feel free to change it back but I would appreciate if you kept the clarity I was aiming for. I'm trying to make GA go a bit quicker for you, given how much great work you put into these GAs. IAWW (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world I decided to change it back. It's not really 100% germane to this article except that the station was sold in the transaction with the network. We have Telemundo to cover this. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair I agree. To be more specific, my issue with the current phrasing is that "$2.7 billion in cash and debt" doesn't make sense. It's unclear whether the $2.7B figure is the sum of the cash spent and the debt the company was in (if this is the intended meaning, why are we adding these figures?) or whether the "and debt" part is meant to signify that Telemundo was in some unspecified amount of debt. IAWW (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world Made one final change: "assumption of debt". Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, passing now. I think this is the first time I have ever had an edit reverted, I didn't know you got a notification! IAWW (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2025 (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.