Talk:WBCM-LP/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have this page watchlisted and look forward to the review. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
copyright owner'' field = missing. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:WBCM-LP 2015.png = only one image used in article, fair use asserted. Please under field: Purpose of use in article, expand with a detailed numbered list an aggressive argumentation for fair-use. Overkill, perhaps, but helps ensure strong fair-use rationale for the longer term. Also, ''Author or
 * I added more information in the "Purpose of use in article" field and added the "Author or

copyright owner" field with information in it. For some reason, the Author field isn't added when you use the wizard.  Not sure why. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay just that bulletted numbered list thing I mentioned, above, left. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed the numbered list part, my goof. I don't understand what you mean by "detailed numbered list an aggressive argumentation for fair-use". -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the field section Purpose of use in article, create a numbered-list using the "#" code, with point-by-point argumentation in a list as to why it is argued as fair use and why the image will be useful. Examples of strong argumentation at File:Mr hankey the xmas poo.jpg and File:South park cartman gets an anal probe episode.jpg. They don't just fill out the template -- they argue for why the fair use is an encyclopedic and educational use in verbose descriptive terms. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never seen that before, so I wasn't sure what you meant. The number bullets didn't work within the template, so I just wrote everything out without them.  I did my best on this, never had to do this before, so I wasn't sure what to put. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 18:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Next, on to Stability assessment. Then, rest of review. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready whenever you are. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment
✅. Next, on to rest of review. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Upon inspection of article edit history, I see helpful and positive collaboration among fellow editors going back to inception.
 * 2) Article talk page shows no concerning disputes.
 * "Whoohoo!" -Homer Simpson  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) NOTE: Please respond, below this entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout, although would like to see more secondary sources. Please consider using archiveurl and archivedate field to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: I realize the History is scant, because, well, there's been less than three (3) years of History. But please try expanding with a new sect for Reception or Commentary with some discussion from secondary sources.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: I see a few sources already cited in the article that might even be used for more reviews type info. These include: Cohen 2015, Cooper 2014, and McGee 2015.
 * 5. Stable? No issues here, per above.
 * 6. Images?: No issues here, per above.


 * 1) NOTE: Please respond, below this entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.
 * GA will be placed as GA on Hold for a time period length of Seven Days... &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick question, when you say "reception", do you mean radio reception or the reception of the community to the station? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter, unless the former is so bad or so good that it becomes subject of the latter. :P &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured you meant the latter, but when it comes to radio, you gotta check. The former isn't that unusual (bad or good) for an LPFM station.  Not bad for only 64 watts, but nothing to write home about. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But maybe something to telegraph home about. Stop. Sounds like a quaint channel. Stop. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * :Actually, it's got a larger coverage area than I thought. It can be heard up to 30 miles away, with only 64 watts.  That's very good, so I added a blurb to the article about it.


 * 2. Didn't have any Internet Archive sources. With the exception of the FCC links, there are secondary sources on most.  I will add a couple more to the non-FCC ones.  Unfortunately, in this case, when a station gets a construction permit or license to cover from the FCC isn't news you'll find in the newspaper or on TV.
 * 3. I created another section, this one about the station's programming, namely their revival of the local classic radio show "Farm and Fun Time". The reception (on the air) is included in this section.
 * 4. I wasn't able to use those sources as secondary sources. Reason being, the other information in those articles is also covered with other sources.


 * I will be working on the secondary sources now. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks very much for your polite responsiveness. You're a real treat! As for archiving with Internet Archive -- please take a moment to read this little guide and also Help:Using the Wayback Machine. You'll find in the future as you use it that it's really quite helpful! Especially takes care of worrying about others coming around later and nagging about pesky deadlinks! ;) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. :) I do try and stay on top of any reviews (GA, FA or PR) that are going on.  Helps both sides get the work done quicker. :)


 * I added secondary sources to most of the primary sources with the exception of the FCC ones. There just isn't a website out there that follows the paperwork portion of the FCC.  I will look over the links you posted above and keep them handy if and when a source/link goes 404.  I try to stay on top of those with Checklinks and update them as needed. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please try to expand the lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, so it could conceivably function on its own as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a short lede, because of the short history of the station, but I think it works (at least I hope so). :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Passed as GA. My thanks to for being so polite and responsive to my GA Review comments, above. Pleasure collaborating on this one. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! :) Thank you for your help and for the review.  Pleasure collaborating with you as well.  Thanks again... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)