Talk:WACL

Article review
Per request, I took a look at the article today. The history section is strong, though it stops at 2003. It feels like it needs at least one sentence to catch it up post-2003. I also think the article needs a section on programming, and a little more meat in the lead section (some of the info from history etc). I see it as a light C at present, but with potential.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been having trouble finding information about the station post-2003, but am still looking. :) Thanks for the review. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is very short, and is light on the programming component. The lead needs expansion. I would rate it as C class at present, or even start-class. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This one I am going to hold off on, since I am having trouble find local sources, until I have full access to Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive.com and HighBeam. That way I can add more. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)