Talk:WCPN

Analog format

• Only 2,000 of the 13,000 analog AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have converted to HD; of those that have converted, all still broadcast via analog as mandated by the FCC. Moreoever, the first HD channel of every HD Radio station is a simulcast of the analog signal -- again, as mandated by the FCC.[1]
  
• 239 million analog radio listeners in the U.S. vs. only 3 million HD Radio units. By far, analog is still the preferred choice among radio consumers.[2]
  
• Clearly, the infobox should reflect that analog technology is still the dominant form of transmission. It's also no secret that the radio industry has been heavily promoting HD Radio; by including only the HD Radio formats, one begins to question the credibility of this article's content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a brochure for iBiquity. Levdr1 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

WCLV (FM) → WCLV – Per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:RADIONAMING. The subject of this article, a radio station (104.9 FM) licensed to Lorain, Ohio, United States, is currently the only broadcast station using the WCLV base callsign (WCLV, WCLV-FM, or WCLV-TV), and has done so since 2003. WCLV (disambiguation) serves to disambiguate from two other radio stations which have used the WCLV base callsign in the past. No other known articles/subjects use "WCLV" as a meaning and/or abbreviation. Levdr1lp / talk 00:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Per above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment this is in effect a multimove discussion, since the nominator displaced the disambiguation page from the base location prior to lodging this move request. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I first moved WCLV to WCLV (FM) on 04-20-13.[3] In retrospect, this was a mistake. I originally thought WCLV ought to serve as a disambiguation page for three radio station articles (this article, which currently identifies as "WCLV", and two other in-market stations which formerly identified as "WCLV"). However, upon realizing that no other broadcast stations currently use the WCLV base callsign, and that no other articles use "WCLV" as a title, alternative title, or abbreviation, I concluded that WCLV (disambiguation) now better serves as the disambiguation page per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:RADIONAMING. Levdr1lp / talk 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: OliveYouBean (talk · contribs) 03:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

G'day! Seeing as this article's been waiting so long I figure I'll have a go at reviewing it. Hopefully shouldn't take too long. :) OliveYouBean (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2022 (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.	In the fifth paragraph of the "WZLE" section, you've written "Contemporary Christian music" with "Contemporary" capitalised even though it's in the middle of a sentence, this should probably be changed. Couldn't find anything else. :)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS:SAID: there's a few places where more neutral wording could be used (like just saying "said" or "stated") at the end of the WZLE section: "Howser asserted that Jacor management pledged to give the station and format autonomy" - could sound like you're calling into question the veracity of his "assertion" in the WAKS section: "Former WZLE personality John Palmer claimed to have fielded 200 phone calls" - could imply that he was lying also in the WAKS section: "One remaining employee noted to the Journal," - feels like it's better to use "commented" or something similar here Keeping in this section, MOS:REALTIME suggests "what is now WMTX" should be rephrased. There's some other places which use "current" (like the caption for the photo of the transmitter) where ideally you'd reword, but I'm not concerned about them because I can't think of a better way of phrasing 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.	All good. :)
	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).	fybush.com looks like it's WP:SELFPUBLISHED, do you have more info on this source? Rest is all good. :)
	2c. it contains no original research.	All good. :)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All good. :)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All good. :)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The only part that feels a bit over-sized is the description of all the acquisitions and swaps, but it's hard to imagine that the article would be improved if that was cut down so I'm gonna say this is all good. :)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	All good. :)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All good. :)
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.	I don't think the fair use rationales for the logos are valid. The rationale for the KISS logo says "The image is used to identify the organization WCPN", but given its placement in the article I don't think this would hold up to scrutiny. The rationale for the WCLV logo says "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing WCPN", which is just straight-up not true. I just saw you added a new image, and since it's copyrighted I don't think it should be used in this way. One of the criteria for using non-free content is "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't really see how using a picture of Gene Sens increases readers' understanding of the radio station.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good. :)
	7. Overall assessment.

I'll have a look at 1b when I get the chance tomorrow. The fair use rationales are the only thing I'm super worried about, otherwise I'm sure this article can be promoted pretty quickly. Thanks for all your hard work on this! OliveYouBean (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@OliveYouBean: Hi!!! I just started a new job this week but I'm ready to go! Thank you for the review!

• 1a: Fixed. :)
• 2a: Scott is generally regarded as a subject matter expert, particularly in television and radio.
• 6b: Those non-free logos actually date back to before my rewrite; in the case of the second logo, it was in the infobox prior to my rewrite being ported over in late March. Both were removed. :)

You might have also noticed there's a bit more info, turns out that The Morning Journal pre-2000 archives got added to NewsBank between the time I made the nomination up to today. As IABot is still not working properly, I manually archived them all. Also tweaked the lede as it felt it could be improved on a bit. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I've been pretty busy with work too, but should be able to do a bit more on this tomorrow. Hopefully we're almost done here. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience with all the edits (and additional content) I put in! These outstanding items should be tidied up:

• 1b: I found Len's comment and put it in instead. Trying to paraphrase it wasn't lending the same impact the direct quote offered.

Re: Palmer - fixed. Reread the article, it was not framed as a claim.

Redid that with "commented" and to better contextualize things.

"the current WMTX" works for me.

• 6: My rationale was in the mind of contextual significance, but this is a good point. I removed the picture, if it works better without, I can just get the image speedy deleted.

Hopefully these edits help! Have a good weekend. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 06:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging for @OliveYouBean. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and changes. I'm happy with everything now, so going to promote the article. Great job on it! OliveYouBean (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help and input, OliveYouBean! Do have a great day! Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WZLE Victory 105 1998 ad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that one listener was shocked to hear "Erotic City" instead of contemporary Christian music on an Ohio radio station? Source: "Christian radio station changes format: WZLE now belts out pop, rock". May 22, 1999. The Morning Journal. Lorain, Ohio. p. D1.
  • ALT1: ... that readers of The Plain Dealer disagreed with a favorable 2002 review of the Tivoli Audio PAL as it could not reliably tune in an Ohio radio station? Source: "More tales of Tivoli tuners". October 10, 2002. The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Ohio. p. E10.
  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt

Improved to Good Article status by Nathan Obral (talk). Self-nominated at 06:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• @Nathan Obral: Good article but I feel as if you could choose a better hook. These hooks are ok but I feel as if better ones could be made. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke: I wrote ALT0 while trying to help Nathan figure out a good hook (I didn't do any substantive edits on the actual article). A lot of the options here are wordy and boring. I have experience with hooks like this and how to avoid them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• @Nathan Obral: Well, it's certainly a shame this has languished so – let's take look. New enough, positively massive, neutral, and plagiarism-free; a little concerned about the use of Fybush.com as a source, it looks like a selfpubbed blog. Not a big fan of either of the hooks; the first is a listener complain, I imagine those aren't uncommon, even if this does get a few clicks by bringing up sexuality and religion. The second seems to fall a little flat. QPQ is not required, so it seems we've got a few small issues to work out. Great job so far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: Scott Fybush is a subject matter expert who has been published in several notable broadcast publications (Radio World, Current). One of the handful of people I'd trust as an SMX in American broadcasting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nathan Obral: in deference to Sammi Brie, sourcing checks out, but new hooks are still needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
      • @Theleekycauldron:@Sammi Brie: If I may interject with some hook proposals:

      ALT2: ... that a Christian music radio station in Ohio protested the 1988 movie The Last Temptation of Christ, calling it morally and ethically wrong?

      ALT3: ... that an Ohio radio station's satellite dish was vandalized twice in 1991, believed to be due to one of the stations' host's outspoken support for Clarence Thomas?

      Man, some weird stuff has happened to this radio station. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

      While I personally think ALT3 is a slightly better hook, my concern is that non-American readers may not know who Thomas is and thus may not appreciate the hook as much if it was chosen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

      @Nathan Obral and MyCatIsAChonk: weird stuff indeed! Unfortunately, both hooks have sourcing issues; the phrasing of ALT2's "morally and ethically wrong", which also appears in the article, is WP:CLOP, creating an article issue. ALT3 needs attribution, both here and in the article, to the station officials. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

      @Narutolovehinata5:@Theleekycauldron: Ok, I've fixed the close paraphrasing in the article for ALT2. Here are new ALTs addressing both issues pointed out:

      ALT2a: ... that a Christian music radio station in Ohio protested the 1988 movie The Last Temptation of Christ due to its "morally and ethically wrong" content?

      Source:

      ALT3a: ... that an Ohio radio station's satellite dish was vandalized twice in 1991, believed to be due to one of the stations' host's outspoken conservative stances, including support of Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas?

      ALT3b: ... that an Ohio radio station's satellite dish was vandalized twice in 1991, believed to be due to one of the stations' host's outspoken conservative stances?

      Also, to comment on theleekycauldron's attribution issue; the statement is cited within the article, though I did forget to add it here. What do you mean by "to the station officials"? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

      @MyCatIsAChonk: the vandalism story is people who work at the station claiming in a newspaper that it was vandalizing and speculating as to why – the fact that the sourcing for the incident and speculation aren't independent of the station is something that needs to be included in the article and the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      @Theleekycauldron: How about:

      ALT3b: ... that an Ohio radio station's satellite dish was vandalized twice in 1991, believed by the station manager to be due to one of the stations' host's outspoken conservative stances?

      This should fix the issue; additionally, it's already states in the article that the reason for damages was Howser's claim. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      ALT3b is good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)