Talk:KVDA
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 b
 | KVDA 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: May 3, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
- 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.
- As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
- 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.
- 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) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KVDA. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:KVDA/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll review this. IAWW (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) 
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)
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
Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) 
Only a few minor issues noted in suggestions.
Reliability (Criterion 2b)
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)
- 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)
Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d)
[4c]: 
[11]: Doesn't support "increasing to $2.7 billion by the sale's closure". or "The acquisition was finalized on April 12, 2002".
[13]:
[14]:
[26]:
Copyvio (Criterion 2d)
Earwig finds nothing, I didn't find any issues on the spot check.
Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)
Covers the whole TV station's lifespan
Stable (Criterion 5)
Media
No image relating to their news operation?
Tags (Criterion 6a)
Captions (Criterion 6b)
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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @It is a wonderful world Made one final change: "assumption of debt". Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @It is a wonderful world Made one final change: "assumption of debt". Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.