Talk:WBSC (AM)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 01:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize this article was recently built up in a hurry to defend against an AfD, and I agree that the article deserves to exist, but ...
It does not come close to meeting WP:WIAGA criteria 3a ("addresses the main aspects of the topic"): The article gives only a business history of the station, in terms of who its different owners were. But it also needs to give a history of what the station broadcast. Only two formats are mentioned, both given at the time of sales. Knowing American radio stations, there were probably a number of other formats. How successful were these formats? What were the station's ratings like? What stations were they directly competing against? Who were some of their more well-known air personalities? Or did they run syndicated programming? What was the station's signal quality like? Did the station have any well-known jingles or other memorable ad campaigns? And so on. When you think of all the things that listeners (and readers) care about in a radio station, the business history is usually the least important, but that's all that's here.
Also, the article does not meet WP:WIAGA criteria 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). The "Falling silent" section, that covers one year, is longer than the two previous sections combined, which cover sixty-four years! It contains excessive, blow-by-blow detail of FCC procedural matters, and the whole section is an example of WP:Undue weight and WP:Recentism.
A more general problem with the article is excessive reliance on primary sources, especially FCC records. Those are okay as far as they go, but there should really be more secondary sources. In addition, the separate "In other media" section is not really warranted – you would be better off using the TV documentary as a source to improve the description of the station in the other sections (such as it becoming automated, if in fact that happened). I'm also not sure what the point of the third External link is ("Query Arbitron's AM station database for WBSC") since it comes up empty.
In sum, this article is not close to being GA level, and it will require considerable research and writing work to get it to such a level. Therefore I am failing this GAN. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)