This review is transcluded from Talk:KGAN/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll review this. Short and sweet compared to the behemoth of WSVN... IAWW (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

channel 2 initially dominated television in the region until other stations caught up: To ensure the reader reads this as a fact rather than an opinion about the general goodness of the station, I think this should be made more precise. E.g. "channel 2 initially dominated television shares in the region" or even better "in #### channel 2 had a ##% share in the region, but by #### their share had dropped to ##%" if you can source the numbers. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the lead section, where I think it would be undue.

until other stations caught up: When? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That is in the lead, two sentences down. But I've reworded the whole sentence.

sought to build channel 2: I get what you mean, but I don't think it's very accurate to say they sought to build a television channel. Rather, they sought to build the broadcasting tower and applied for permission to broadcast to channel 2? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded, but metonymy of this kind is extremely common.

Live local programming did not appear immediately: Do we know when it did appear? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could not find this. Seems like November at the latest, since they debuted a newscast according to their own ads.

The sale was completed on October 16, 1981, at which time WMT-TV became KGAN-TV: Make it clear that they purchased the call letters. A reader unfamiliar with the subject matter may not be aware companies had to purchase them. Also, how much did the sale cost? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think you're reading this right. Call letters aren't being "sold" here. At this time, it was the rule that stations with the same base call sign had to be commonly owned. So when radio-TV combos like this were broken up over the years, someone had to change call signs.

to improve its balance sheet:

• Balance sheet is quite a technical term, could this be reworded, linked or explained?
• It's not clear how this would improve the balance sheet IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. They evidently were losing money and did not see small-market TV in their future...

because of the ownership structure of Sunrise: Make it clear that it was because of a possible conflict of interest. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded. The real obvious reason here: you can't generally own, especially at that time, two major network affiliates in the same area.

the station later asked to move down from its original channel of 51 due to the limitations of the channel 51 signal and no buffer being left between it and wireless and cellular services occupying the spectrum formerly allocated to channels 52-69: Punctuate to make it easier to read IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded.

WMT-TV was the dominant television news source in Eastern Iowa in its early years. A February 1965 Arbitron survey found that 71,000 households watched WMT's late news, whereas competitors KWWL and KCRG-TV between them only attracted 33,000: Is it possible to use percentage shares instead of raw numbers here? It would make it more concise which would mean it could be moved into the lead. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a percentage.

In part, this was due to the consulting work of Marion-based Frank Magid: What was he consulted for? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TV news consulting is multifaceted, but I used the label from one of the sources of "mnrketing consulting". It's admittedly unusual: in the industry, they're just called "consultants".

WMT-TV was the firm's first client: You link to a person (Frank Magid) but refer to him as a "firm". IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The firm bore his name, but I've reworded this.

this was due to the consulting work of Marion-based Frank Magid: I'm a little worried this could be an opinion stated as fact, but I can't find where in the source (if anywhere) supports this. Mentioned in the spot check. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sourcing sure does this. See below.

WMT-TV made a critical mistake in ousting meteorologist Craig Johnson in favor of Bill Bailey: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded. Also found another source from another publication talking about this dismissal. He worked at KWWL for 23 years. This was one of the worst kinds of unforced errors.

However, in: "However" is used to contrast with what? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• With the paragraph before.

It's not clear that it refers to the paragraph before. If you mean the sentence before, then I would say there was never a positive expectation built up about hiring Bailey, so it feels weird to use the contrasting "However" IAWW (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Towne was released: Is this a euphemism for fired? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• His contract was not renewed. One more source.

two Daves left the evening newscasts: This a mix of editorializing and trivia I believe. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed.

lasted just two years: "just" implies it was a short period of time, which is an opinion. Cut. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed.

After KGAN began providing services to KFXA in 2002: I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but the phrasing makes it sound like it is referring to something previously mentioned. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, in the History section.

This section mentions that Sinclair provided services to KFXA, which is not the same thing as KGAN? IAWW (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KGAN won another Peabody for exposing a sewer solvent scandal in which the city bought solvent at an 800 percent markup from a local chemical company:

• Be clear that KGAN filmed a program on this (if that is the case)
• Did it expose corruption in the city that led to this, or was it just somebody in the city doing a really bad job at researching for solvent prices? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a report in a newscast. Added a ref on the bribery.

Looks good :)

Well formatted and nicely archived. Thanks for providing the URLs to newspapers.com snippets. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all news and broadcasting journals. A couple self-published sources are used, but they are used sparingly and are not unduly self-serving.

[3]: Y

[7]: Y

[9]: I don't see where it supports that it was explicitly a promotion. I also couldn't find any mention of WMT-TV on page 71, am I missing something? IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article, which is easy to miss because of the layout, calls it "A stunt that paid off in stirring up local interest..." at the bottom of the first column. That's a promotion. The article continues on p71 but doesn't mention WMT there. Y

[20]: Y

[32]: Y

[35]: N It does talk about Magid, but I don't see how it supports the content. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What's odd here is that the online version is missing a sidebar that ProQuest has. That's what verifies the content, so there's a reason for you to be baffled. I am reproducing the relevant part here:

Sidebar: Spanning the Decades: from broadcast to cable and beyond / George Winslow

1950s

• Frank Magid, a sociologist who was teaching anthropology and statistics at Coe College and sociology at the University of Iowa, founds a research and consulting firm.
• After serving a wide variety of non-media clients, the company does its first TV work for WMT (now KGAN) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Ratings for the newscast soar, leading to work with such station groups as Time-Life.

Oh thank you for explaining and changing the ref. Looks good. IAWW (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig finds nothing, will check for any close paraphrasing with print sources on the spot check.

The article covers the station's entire lifespan, but notably lacks coverage from 2000 onwards. I guess there was a lack of newspaper coverage? IAWW (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the intrigue is in the news department and in the KFXA consolidation, admittedly.

Did you not come across any decent images in your newspaper research? IAWW (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I found one just now. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC and RabbitEars are the only linked publishers I think. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Did this too. @It is a wonderful world: Take a look. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sammi Brie Thanks for making these improvements to the article, or otherwise explaining your reasoning. I replied to a few points above, but most of the changes/explanations I am happy with. The remaining quibbles are beyond the requirements for GA, so I will pass this and leave them as suggestions. IAWW (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]