Talk:Smooth Radio (2010)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite being 'only' 32, I am ashamed to admit that I rather like Smooth, so with that in mind, I'll review this one :). Give me a day or so to have a good read through... Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's make a start:


 * Disambiguation: None found
 * Image check: The logo is probably fine under it's free use license, the Albert Hall img is fine, the Gateshead img is fine, the wedding img is fine, as is the Falklands img.
 * Dead links: The checking tool says that one or two are not working– I'll have a look a little later when I get to the relevant part of the article...there are a couple of dead-looking links and I've noted these below.
 * Quick fail issues: plenty of references, can't see any obvious clean up tags or banners, radio station isn't really an 'ongoing event', no evidence of edit-warring.


 * Lead is very good and reads very nicely. No infobox issues.
 * Not sure that "extensive research" is an accurate representation of the source in ref.6. Suggest removal of 'extensive'?
 * The link in ref.12 appears to be dead. As this may be a convenience link to a paper document, it might be sufficient to simply cite the document itself without the link if this is possible?
 * The link in ref.23 also appears to be dead.
 * " London listeners and those tuning nationally would hear national information"– might just be me, but this sentence doesn't seem to quite read right. Is there an 'in' missing after 'tuning'?
 * I'm wondering if "Smooth Christmas" should be red-linked as it seems that the station is broadcasting again this year and someone might, some day, decide to write an article here about it? Ditto "Smooth 70's"?
 * Formatting error in ref.36? The article linked states "sold for £70m", rather than £50m
 * Small grammar nitpick: In the sentence "Figures for the third quarter of 2010, released in October of that year showed that collectively, the six regional Smooth stations had reached 3 million on a weekly basis at the time Smooth became a national broadcaster" I suspect a comma is missing after 'year'?
 * In the section entitled 'Marketing and Sponsorship' when talking of the mad woman abseiling off the Tyne bridge, suggest blue-linking north east?
 * Another small grammar nit-pick– "departing because the BBC would not allow him to continue working for a rival broadcaster," should end with a full-stop rather than a comma.
 * "having previously brought his Soul Train to 100.4 Smooth Radio upon its launch in 2004" This sentence reads a little journalistic and might benefit from a slight rewrite.
 * Again, pendantic, but the sentence "but left in 2011 to take up the position at UTV Media as director of programming " doesn't quite read right; perhaps he "left in 2011 to take up a position at UTV Media" or perhaps "to take up the position of director of programming at UTV Media"?
 * The list looks okay– looks like an embedded, children list to me which is fine per WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists
 * I am not sure that "connect with their loved ones" is particularly encyclopedic. Consider slight rewrite (as this is the precise wording used in the source).
 * "Smooth Radio is the host of a series of free live music gigs held at venues around the United Kingdom, and titled Love Live Music, which give listeners the opportunity" suggest removing the 'and' before 'titled'?
 * Should "Help for Heroes Day" be in quotation marks as "Smooth Radio Starlight Supper" is?

Overall Comments A very well written, well sourced, engaging and comprehensive article– I always enjoy reviewing when I learn things I didn't know and I thoroughly enjoyed finding out that I am far too young to listen to this station at work and why I used to get a load of jazz music when I tuned in late at night! There are a few minor tweaks and nitpicks outlined above, but once these are fixed we should be able to wrap this review up fairly quickly. In the meantime, I'll pop this on hold... Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Glad to know there's at least one other person in my age demographic who likes this station. Friends always seem to think I'm a little eccentric when I mention that I like Smooth. :) With luck I'm hoping to work on this tomorrow afternoon and evening so should be able to address everything in one session. Also the copyedit's about two thirds complete, so it's possible some of the above might be picked up overnight. Thanks again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I'm currently copy-editing the article; wait a few days and the prose should be more concise. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did notice after I'd reviewed that there was a copy-edit going on so I'm happy to wait until Baffle gab has completed the copy-edit. Meetthefeebles (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've replaced 3 deadlinks and added an extra reference to cover the 2006 Ofcom decision. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that it seems that Baffle is still beavering away, so I'll continue to take a watching brief and wait for the work to be done. If Baffle could either leave a note here or even ping my talk page when all is complete, I'd be very grateful :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have discovered today I need to be away tomorrow, but should be back by Saturday afternoon/evening so if the copyedit is complete by then I can fix any other outstanding issues. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy-edit done - feel free to continue reviewing and editing accordingly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm back now so can look at anything that needs to be done. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the above suggestions for changes were cleared up during the copy edit, but I've tweaked one or two from the earlier part of the text. For example, I changed "extensive research" to "market research" as that's really what they did in that case. Should hopefully be ok now, but let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

After having reviewed the changes made, I am awarding GA status. Well done! I'd also state that this is a strong GA and I suspect that,in time, this might be worthy of consideration at WP:FAC. Please consider reviewing an article against the good article criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)