Talk:WTCF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Radio Stations (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / West Virginia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Virginia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Neutralhomer

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Each sentence is fine on its own, but taken together the article feels like a list, rather than like prose. For instance, of the 16 paragraphs in the article, seven of these are just a single sentence. (Almost all the rest contain just two sentences.) Eight of them begin "On [Month] [day], [year]," (once prepended by "Also"). Taken together, the prose is not up to GA quality.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Per MOS:LEAD, a lead needs to summarize all sections of the article without containing information not found in the article body. This lead does not do that. Much of the info in the lead is not found in the article (format and coverage), while almost nothing in the longest section (Pre-broadcast history) is in the lead. Also, the lead claims that Alex Media owns WTCF, but the body says Alex sold it.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The References section is great.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. It all seems appropriately sourced.
2c. it contains no original research. Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. This is a very short article. I understand it's a small station, but there is almost no information about the format, specific shows, DJs (if any), marketing, etc. There's no information about community response or reception. If you want, you can look at what GAs and FAs for other radio stations do.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Not a problem.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. No neutrality problems, because "reception" isn't really covered.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No problems.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. The image description and rationale are solid.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The one image is used appropriately.
7. Overall assessment. I'm afraid this article does not pass our GA criteria right now, and isn't likely to with the addition of substantial, new information, along with significant rewriting. If that happens, feel free to renominate it. – Quadell (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the GA review. What this article needs is an import of information on present-day status, programming, community activities if any. There are prose tweaks that could be made, but what it comes down to it won't advance without more information. I'll play with the prose a bit, I noted a couple of places when I went through, but it really isn't much. We've got to hear about what the station is doing, as well as information about ratings and how it is doing in its market compared with competitors.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)