Talk:KDND/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 23:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RedShellMomentum (talk · contribs) 01:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing this after learning that they held the Hold Your Wee for a Wii challenge (RIP Jennifer Strange). RedShellMomentum 01:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Overall, this article looks good, but the sentences "Some later remarked on the physical discomfort they suffered during and following the event", "Subsequently, both DJs settled with Entercom for an undisclosed amount", and "and subsequently change its call sign to KZIS" are unsourced. Either justify the reason for them being unsourced, cite them, or remove them. Once that's fixed, I'll pass this. RedShellMomentum 21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @RedShellMomentum. This article has a lot of older references but the ref density is fairly high. (Most of what I wrote was the station history pre-2007.) I've gone in and added some missing ref metadata and removed two of the three items and cited the third. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Congratulations, you have passed your nomination! RedShellMomentum 02:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Passes.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Passes.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good, just some minor concerns above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows 59.2% similarity, which is a bit high. However, I will let it slide since it shows similarity with TV Tropes, which I'm guessing mirrored its content from Wikipedia.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Passes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see 100% neutral wording. Passes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Page history shows no recent edit wars. Passes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Passes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Passes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good, just some minor concerns above.

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.