Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WINC (AM)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Graham Colm 10:46, 18 May 2014 [1].
WINC (AM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Winchester, Virginia-based radio station WINC, an AM station. The article was promoted to GA status on April 10, 2014 and featured on DYK on April 13, 2014. The article was the subject of 2 informal PRs, along with a formal PR (with 3 different users reviewing at once). If promoted to FA, this will be the first radio station article at FA status. The article is currently one of just 6 articles about radio stations at GA status.
At present, the article focuses on the station's 70+ year history, both prior and after launch; the people heard on the station, including country music legend Patsy Cline (who got here start at WINC) and President Johnson; how one of the station's employees created systems used by radio stations today, and other historical information.
The article currently has 97 references in total, one picture of the station's studios (from March 24, 2014) and two images, one of the station's current logo (in the infobox) one another of the station's first logo (from 1941). Other pictures and images/logos can be added if necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check from Hamiltonstone
- File:WINC-AM 2009.PNG - appropriate non-free use rationale, looks okay
- File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG - non-free use rationale states, under the section on purpose of use in article: "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", however this is not how it is used. The non-free use rationale needs to be revised to accurately reflect the secondary and historical use of the image. That said, I am not convinced the image would meet Wikipedia:NFCC#8, as I am not clear why its inclusion significantly increases the reader's understanding of the topic. Would welcome other editor views.
- File:WINCStudios 03242014.jpg - own work and looks okay.
More experienced editor input on the second image would be appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG, I would have no qualms on removing this image. I did my best to get it up to NFCC#8 standards within the FUR. If the image still fails NFCC#8, I have no problem with it being removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look at File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG, the more I think it really doesn't fit. So, I have removed it completely. I have it saved on my computer should it need to be readded. Presently, File:WINC-AM 2009.PNG and File:WINCStudios 03242014.jpg are the only two images on the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG, I would have no qualms on removing this image. I did my best to get it up to NFCC#8 standards within the FUR. If the image still fails NFCC#8, I have no problem with it being removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I was one of the informal peer reviewers and did some hands-on work on the article as well. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and the help on the informal PR. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Interesting and nicely done. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I was one of the peer reviewers and that I made some minor editorial changes during the review and a few more today. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, the earlier PR and the changes today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I reviewed this for GA, and was concerned it still looked a little rough around the edges then, but has been improved now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and the help with the GAN. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, even if they're cited later
- Done. - NH
- Be consistent in whether you include location/publisher for periodicals
- Fixed the missing instances of location and publisher in the newspapers and magazines. - NH
- FN64: volume should be separate from title
- The title of the book is "Encyclopedia of Radio 3-Volume Set". - NH
- The bibliographical information given in the citation does not appear to match that given by that link. Are those two different editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected, I also switched Christopher Sterling from author to editor, per the cover, as there is no real author listed for the book. I also corrected a goof in the ISBN numbers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliographical information given in the citation does not appear to match that given by that link. Are those two different editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the book is "Encyclopedia of Radio 3-Volume Set". - NH
- Newspaper cites without weblinks should include page numbers
- Corrected and added. - NH
- Why is Broadcasting italicized in FN1 et al but not in the Sources list? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Total goof on my part, corrected. - NH
- Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the names of newspapers, that is done automatically in the {{cite news}} template. Same with some parts in the {{cite web}} template (especially anything in the "work" field). I don't add italics to any of the references, that's all automatic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The template automatically italicizes certain parameters, but it is the editor who decides which template is used and which info goes in which parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is indeed true. So, on {{cite web}} templates, I switched out the "work" field for the "publisher" field. I only used the "work" field on the {{cite web}} templates. Reason being, to me, publisher is something you find in books, newspapers and magazines...not internet pages. That's the only thing I could find that might be out of place. Please let me know if that is not what you were looking for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, looks fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Thanks for your help on the source review. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, looks fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is indeed true. So, on {{cite web}} templates, I switched out the "work" field for the "publisher" field. I only used the "work" field on the {{cite web}} templates. Reason being, to me, publisher is something you find in books, newspapers and magazines...not internet pages. That's the only thing I could find that might be out of place. Please let me know if that is not what you were looking for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The template automatically italicizes certain parameters, but it is the editor who decides which template is used and which info goes in which parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the names of newspapers, that is done automatically in the {{cite news}} template. Same with some parts in the {{cite web}} template (especially anything in the "work" field). I don't add italics to any of the references, that's all automatic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay on these, under the weather today. Finished the corrections for the source review. Please let me know if there are other corrections that need to be taken care of (I will be up for awhile). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is awesome! Thank you! No problem on leaving the template in place. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To all: With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.