Talk:WTCF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Neutralhomer

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.	Each sentence is fine on its own, but taken together the article feels like a list, rather than like prose. For instance, of the 16 paragraphs in the article, seven of these are just a single sentence. (Almost all the rest contain just two sentences.) Eight of them begin "On [Month] [day], [year]," (once prepended by "Also"). Taken together, the prose is not up to GA quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Per MOS:LEAD, a lead needs to summarize all sections of the article without containing information not found in the article body. This lead does not do that. Much of the info in the lead is not found in the article (format and coverage), while almost nothing in the longest section (Pre-broadcast history) is in the lead. Also, the lead claims that Alex Media owns WTCF, but the body says Alex sold 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.	The References section is great.
	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).	It all seems appropriately sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a very short article. I understand it's a small station, but there is almost no information about the format, specific shows, DJs (if any), marketing, etc. There's no information about community response or reception. If you want, you can look at what GAs and FAs for other radio stations do.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality problems, because "reception" isn't really covered.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
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.	The image description and rationale are solid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	The one image is used appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid this article does not pass our GA criteria right now, and isn't likely to with the addition of substantial, new information, along with significant rewriting. If that happens, feel free to renominate it. – Quadell (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the GA review. What this article needs is an import of information on present-day status, programming, community activities if any. There are prose tweaks that could be made, but what it comes down to it won't advance without more information. I'll play with the prose a bit, I noted a couple of places when I went through, but it really isn't much. We've got to hear about what the station is doing, as well as information about ratings and how it is doing in its market compared with competitors.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)