Talk:CHUM (AM)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article has some positive aspects, but is not close to GA status.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is insufficient in length and coverage per WP:LEAD. The article has too many short, choppy sections and short, choppy paragraphs. Alternate or older brandings of the station should be in bold in the lead (especially if they are redirect targets), not italics.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Many paragraphs in the article are completely unsourced. The article would fail GAN for this reason alone. There's a good start with using old newspaper stories from the 1940s, but then they disappear until the late 2000s. The article needs newspaper stories to cover throughout the station's history. The citations that are in the article are very poorly formatted, with bare links, missing publishers and dates, all upper case in titles, etc. Links are missing to well-known songs such as "All Shook Up".

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The coverage suffers badly from WP:RECENTISM. The decades of the 1940s through the 1990s get about 2 paragraphs each. The 2000s and 2010s combined get over 20 paragraphs. Coverage of the different eras should be roughly equal, The six showcased review quotations of the most recent format shift are unwarranted, since none of the other format changes get similar treatment. In addition, important topics are missing. What is (has been) its listening area? There's one image of this, but not enough description. Is it a clear channel station (I don't think so, but should be explicitly said). Did it have a significant U.S. listenership? What have its profit/loss figures been like? What about its ratings books (Arbitron, or whatever the Canadian equivalent is)? What were the station's primary competitors during each era?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I see some reversions in April with an IP address, but seems okay in this regard.

6. 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):

   The public domain licenses on File:Chumradio1.jpg, File:ChumCoverage.jpg, File:1050CHUMjays.gif, File:Team1050Toronto.jpg, maybe File:1050CHUM.png, and File:Tsn Radio 1050 alt.jpg seem invalid to me. Most of them need the normal logo fair use license that File:CP24 Radio 1050.png uses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article still needs a lot of work before coming to GAN again.