- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
KTVH-DT
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 17:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC).
- Starting the review shortly. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
| 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
|
|
|
Overall: 
Article meets eligibility criteria - recently promoted to GA, and meets length criteria. Article is well sourced and I do not see issues with tone. Earwig shows no copyvio issues. Hook is used in the article and is cited. It is sourced to a local newspaper and says a 'blog' but is more of a column by a named author within the newspaper. So, I believe this is alright. Hook is interesting but, I would encourage the nominator to see if they would want to reword the hook. Currently seems a tad verbose, but, that might just be me. If the nominator wants to persist with this hook wording, I will yield to them. QPQ is done. This is almost there. Ktin (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Ktin: I tried to figure out a more compact way to word this and fell short. Any ideas? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the original hook is too long. It seems pretty straightforward to me. At 127 characters it's also at most at the middle in terms of length, considering we tend to have hooks that have 150+ characters. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Marking this as approved. Nice work as always Sammi Brie! Ktin (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Article meets eligibility criteria - recently promoted to GA, and meets length criteria. Article is well sourced and I do not see issues with tone. Earwig shows no copyvio issues. Hook is used in the article and is cited. It is sourced to a local newspaper and says a 'blog' but is more of a column by a named author within the newspaper. So, I believe this is alright. Hook is interesting but, I would encourage the nominator to see if they would want to reword the hook. Currently seems a tad verbose, but, that might just be me. If the nominator wants to persist with this hook wording, I will yield to them. QPQ is done. This is almost there. Ktin (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)