Talk:.tv/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 02:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review for GARC. FishLoveHam (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not much to tackle off my initial assessments.

Lead

Per MOS:OVERLINK, I suggest unlinking "television".

History

Background

"estimated" → "under" (given in source).
"got" → "was".

Creation

I suggest merging background and creation into one subheading, but this is not a requirement.
"In 1998 The .tv Corporation" add a comma after 1998 and decapitalise "the".
Add a comma after "1999".
"over the course of" → "over".
Add a comma after "January 2000".

Marketing and use

Add a comma after "2001".
"550,000, extended" → "550,000 and extended".
"in an effort to" → "to".
"through to 2021" → "through 2021" or "until 2021".
Remove comma after "Company".
Add a comma after "December 2021".

Benefits

Content stations

"movie services" → "streaming services".
"including" → "such as".
"the website of Twitch" remove "of".

co.tv

Climate change

"is" → "would be". Reply: Which is? All of them?

References

I highly recommend archiving all the sources.
Add either a heading or a subheading above the external links.

@FishLoveHam: Done with everything. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam: Hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving comments here for GARC

because it is an abbreviation of the word television. In 1998, the government of Tuvalu sought to capitalize on the .tv suffix being short for "television". silly to mention it being short for television in successive sentences.
Why does the infobox say it is a "Country code top-level domain" while the lede says "Google treats .tv as a generic top-level domain (gTLD) because "users and website owners frequently see [the domain] as being more generic than country targeted."
Agree with FLH that television doesn't need to be linked, as it is in the infobox.
If it was introduced in 18 March 1996, this needs to be in the body and sourced.
TURN ON YOUR DOMAIN -> turnon.tv
Before the domain name The domain name already existed at this time.
It absolutely needs to be included that the domain name was issued in 1995.
Claim that it was One of five atoll states is not in inline sources as far as I can see.
Cite the page number in source [5] instead of the entire page range.
One of five atoll states, Tuvalu gained little money, with many challenges and costs ungrammatical
Tuvalu's supposed business was Tourism supposed business? Why is tourism capitalised? It does not need to be linked.
but the idea was shut down by the government the idea of tourism was shut down by the government? This doesn't seem true as there's nothing on the page for Tuvalu reflecting this apparent preference.
Following its 1996 assignment of the .tv ccTLD by the IANA not in source
under the tentative management of Information.CA source doesn't describe founding as under tentative management
Doesn't identify .tv Corporation as DotTV
Again, with source 6, you have to include page numbers. A 23 page range is too much.
Source 6 is now saying .tv was assigned in the 1980s [292]
Following a $5 million quarterly payment in January 2000, the company's subsequent poor financial performance resulted in the transfer of $3 million in preferred DotTV stock to the government of Tuvalu in exchange for waiving three quarterly payments. Following the hiring of Lou Kerner as CEO of DotTV in January 2000 the company grew to over 100 employees, establishing offices in Los Angeles, London, and Hong Kong. is unsourced.
The PR Newswire archive link is broken. It's also not really a RS since it's just a publisher of press releases.

I'll leave these comments here. FishLoveHam would have covered much of this in the source review, I hope I saved them some energy/time, and they can proceed with this assessment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second bullet point, the domain is actually classified as a Country code top-level domain and unofficially classified as generic, answering your question. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything wrong with source 5. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with source 6 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1996 assignment, it's actually in page 453 (probably?) 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything (except the things that I oppose, just need your response). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a small country, Tuvalu gained a small amount of money, with many costs still ungrammatical
In 1998, the government of Tuvalu sought to capitalize on the .tv suffix. The next sentence jumps between time periods.
I really don't think that's on page 453. You still need to reference specific page numbers instead of 23 pages as it is too difficult to verify.
You didn't include that it was assigned in the 80s.

I don't want to respond to too much, I'll leave it for FishLoveHam. From my initial read of how the text matches up with the sources, I would say it fails a spot check.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the source, I don't think the sentence jumps between time periods. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean source 4. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything (again, except the things I oppose) is okay (probably). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Think you're active, hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't want to dominate this review given it's not my own. I'll say that it's strange to jump from they wished to do this in 1998, and then jump to in 2019 it made 8.4% of revenue. Usually you would mention "and in 2000 or whenever they implemented it". It's a flow issue. I am not sure what else to say if you oppose adding page numbers etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave Oh! I thought you meant the sentence. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, needs checking though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's copyvio reported over 97% in similarity, but the only source with a major violation has seemingly been copied from this page, so no copyright issues. I'll spot check the article soon. FishLoveHam (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, noticed that before. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[1] Y
[5] Y
[9] Y
[12] Y
[16] Y

FishLoveHam (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

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:
· · ·

Major points

The article contains mild original research surrounding climate change and Tuvalu.
The article doesn't seem broad enough, as a lot of material has been written about the subject, yet this article is fairly small.

I could perform a thorough source analysis later, but i don't think it will be necessary as the lack of coverage on the article are not good for its chances of passing. FishLoveHam (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam Will the GAN be failed? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam: Hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the OR, can you check? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find that many sources, for one thing, most of the sources are in Google Books, listing in the talk. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By doing a quick google search, I was able to find a lot more stuff than the article presents. It isn't the end of the world, and the article is definitely not beyond repair. A bit of expansion will do it wonders, but as for now, I'm afraid I don't have much of a choice. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]