Talk:WABN/GA1

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 07:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Will put up comments shortly!

It's a nice article and a good read, I have some early concerns. It's researched well and I feel with some small changes it should be good to go!


 * Lead
 * As per WP:Mos the lead is better without any footmotes. Remove the references and move them into the the prose!
 * Done. - NH
 * Rest looks good, Good job!
 * Thanks! :) - NH


 * WBBI era
 * I don't know much about the history but is there any history available for the time between between January 1957 and April 1957. I mean some early work, before the award?
 * Nothing, sorry. Unfortunately, there is alot of lost information from that era on alot of stations. :( - NH


 * WABN era
 * WABN era - Present era, because its uncommon to mention the title of the page further in the headings.
 * Fixed. - NH


 * Programming
 * The first line here can be included in the history section, the broadcast through the course of the history of the station.
 * Fixed. - NH

These are just some stray observations I'll go through the prose once again, once I acquaint myself with the topic more! Numerounovedant  Talk  08:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I really wished the article could be expanded! But from what I see the article has no issues with what it has right now. It looks in good state. See if there is anything at all you can add to it! Numerounovedant  Talk  18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Final comments
 * I have Gale access now, I didn't then, lemme see what I can dig up. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked Gale and my Newspapers access as well and couldn't find anything for the station as WABN or WBBI. :( -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I really wish we (well mostly you and the contributors of the article, because I haven't really done anything here) could do more with this one, but I a glad to see a well maintained article despite the lack of information sources for the topic. Great work on that! Numerounovedant  Talk  08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA! :) I will keep working on the article, I never stop. :)  Hopefully soon, I can fill in some of those blank spaces in the history.  Again, thanks for the GA review. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)