Talk:WPDX (AM)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disambig links: OK
Reference check: OK

Comments: A quaint little article, it covers the notable aspect of the station's history and touches upon the interest conflict that arose in a neutral manner. The programming "as of" should be updated to reflect the 2014 programming schedule, if it changed. No part of the text contained any prose errors that jumped out at me, which was a good think, but I do wonder why the "see also" section contains links to Google Streetview. I believe the see also section is only for other Wikipedia articles; I'd consider moving these to external links. I think there would be no objections to passing it after these changes were made. Placing on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Google StreetView links were me just adding everything. They aren't necessary to the whole of the article and the one for the studio isn't necessary at all, since I have a photo of that now. I will remove those posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, if I may, how's the review coming? It seems to me that it won't take much time to wrap this up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homer left a few comments on my talk page. I was wondering if I should wait till the sale closes so he can update, but I doubt it would be an issue at this point. I wonder if a few more sentences for the lead would help out that one last aspect because the original format and genre switch are not covered and the CN broadcast details should also be covered to meet the WP:LEAD aspect. I've been becoming a bit tougher on that standard as of late, but I really can't find any other issues in which to hold it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can add something about the original format into the lede. What do you mean by "CN broadcast details"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That it carries "Cumulus Media Networks' satellite-fed Classic Hits network". Sorry to abbreviate awkwardly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That's what I thought you were meaning, but I wanted to make sure. I will add that as well to the lede. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. I added the Cumulus mention to the lede, added what the original format of the station was, how the station switched formats several times in the 70s and 80s. Short of the sale being closed today (and the FCC ruling on it), I don't see any further changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Sir. I greatly appreciate your review on the article. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]