Talk:WKEY (AM)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 May 2013 (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.	The prose itself is not of adequate quality; there are verb tense shifts all over the place in the only section that has sizable prose, which is a separate problem. Also, there is abundant usage of passive voice which is potentially acceptable in the manners in which it is used, but it is not ideal. Good update; I am now satisfied with the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~The lead is woefully short, though I suppose so is the article, but still, it doesn't do a very good job summarizing the history section.~~ I am not an MOS aficionado, but it looks OK to me. The lead is vastly improved, and now summarizes the remainder adequately. One question: why, if this is WKEY AM does the first sentence say "WKEY (1340 FM) is..."; does the station broadcast on both FM and AM?
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 article is meticulously cited, so I will give you that
	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).	This is fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unfortunately, it contains little research outside of basic history at all ... ?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~And this is the biggest issue, can we get a section on programming, a section on reception (as in listening statistics), possibly some non-pedantic information in the history section?~~ Almost there in this category: is it a popular radio station in the area? Was it ever the subject of national attention for any reason? To be blunt, this article is boring to read, and if the POTUS listened to it on a campaign swing or something interesting like that, I want to read about it. Again, is there any chance we can get a section on reception (as in how people who listen feel about it...is it the most popular station in the county, in the area of its "hearing area", etc.)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It is focused, I will give you that.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It's fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No one is warring.
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 would have a hard time making a case for how the old logo meets fair use...the current one, perhaps, but can you justify how the old one meets fair use please? (still interested)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant, but again, double-check fair use please.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~I don't think this article is nearly broad enough to achieve GA, but I will leave this review open for a few days in case you can find additional information.~~ We're close; just those few items. Go Phightins! 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed up the speech on the entire article and tried to get rid of those "tense" problems. I did my best on the lede, but it turned into just one sentence. :( After some dinner (pork chops, yum!), I am going to work on 3a, and that might lead to something more for the lede and 1b. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the headache, I have updated the WKEY (AM) page with at much programming information as I could dig up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Neutralhomer's request, I've cleaned up the references, converted them to list-defined, strengthened the lede, and done a bit of spot clean-up. - Dravecky (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dravecky, much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1b: Goof on my part. WKEY broadcasts on AM 1340, but simulcasts on translator W278BF (though that is mentioned in the lede).

3a: No ratings for this area are available from Arbitron, at least not that I can find through normal searches and channels. The area has a large number of country music listeners (I know cause there are a TON of country stations in this area) but I am not sure if that makes it the "most listened to" station, as I have nothing to back it up. The station did win a Virginia Assocation of Broadcasters award back in 2002, but that is sourced from a radio/TV information webste and not the Virginia Association of Broadcasters (though they get the information from them).

6a: I know secondary (or older) logos are normally removed and I would have no problem with "The Cross" logo being taken out. I have "The Cross" logo listed under Fair Use, but again, if it can be taken out, that's cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "The Cross" logo since there was some concern about it under Fair Use. I do think the image of Earl M. Key adds something to the page, especially since it came from a matchbook cover (the other side had an old WKEY logo). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.