Talk:WCPN/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]