Talk:WSLK

Coverage area
Regarding the radio station's coverage area, how is radio-locator.com a reliable source? The disclaimer language at the bottom essentially says it isn't. I can't follow where we're supposed to go for the Arbitron reference link. They have no SIP profile info. Can somebody walk me through that?--chaser - t 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "No Spring 2009 data found for WSLK-AM." Hmm... - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to R-L's FAQ the signal maps are based on various dBu's. There's really no reliable source when it comes to coverage maps because of the terrain, etc. There are complicated FCC reports out there (that vary by station) about overlapping signals in order to figure out ownership limits and market areas. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the map, it shows a purple line that extends well into Roanoke and Lynchburg. That line shows the point at which the signal theoretically attenuates to 0.5mV/m, which is considered the minimum acceptable signal for reception. So even if the radio-locator map is accepted as a credible source, it is fair to say that the station can be received well beyond the stated area. I believe the original dispute was over this wording: "Due to WSLK's weak signal, its signal only covers Southern Bedford County, Virginia and Northeastern Franklin County, Virginia". That is an inaccurate interpretation of the very source that is referenced. Now that it has been edited, it still suggests that the signal is not receivable outside of the 'red' area, which is the primary signal coverage. May we not allow the language "This station serves the Smith Mountain Lake area.", especially given the fact that the lake itself is contained within that same red circle? 76.6.217.68 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's too vague (what is the "Smith Mountain Lake area"? If we're going to rely on the map (and anyone would be within their rights to object, in which case we will have no information about coverage area), then we should follow the source as closely as possible. For example: "WSLK has good coverage on most of Smith Mountain Lake..." (there appear to be bits of the lake outside the red area) "...and a weak signal to Roanoke and Bedford." (tracking the language in the FAQs). It would not be inappropriate to add a disclaimer about these predictions being theoretical. That wording may not be what your engineer has found, but that's what the most reliable source we have says.--chaser - t 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As a Radio and TV Broadcast Engineer serving the Mid-Atlantic Region for the last 20+ years, and as an avid WSLK listener that lives in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market, I can attest to the fact that WSLK's coverage is well into several counties...Franklin, Bedford, Pennsylvania, Roanoke, and Henry, just to name a few. I do RF signal testing and monitoring for a living, so know a little bit about the topic. I live probably close to 20 miles away from the station and still get a signal good enough to listen too !! And that's with an under-the-counter Wally World special. No telling what I would get if I used my Ham Radio ( kb4wnt )long-wire antenna. As my work has proven to me time and time again, these coverage maps from the FCC and R-L type web-sites are projections at best, and out-right guess at worst. You have to get in the field and actually "Ride" your coverage area, or better yet, do signal strength measurements like I do to actually know what the coverage really is. Why do you think the FCC requires such measurements to be done when-ever a station applies to make major changes to their transmission system? No information on these sites should ever be taken as gospel, or used to make statements about a stations coverage one way or the other.Ecs4hire (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, but we can't cite that to a reliable source. We're a bunch of anonymous people on the internet, so citing a radio engineer who I talked to on the phone is no good, because a Wikipedia contributor does not have the same reputation and credibility as, say, the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.--chaser - t 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the 'bits' of the lake that you see are not Smith Mountain Lake. Smith Mountain Lake is a man-made lake, and what you see are the rivers that feed the lake, as well as the other lake (Leesville Lake) which is fed by the outflow from the Smith Mountain Dam. The entire area of what is described as Smith Mountain Lake falls within the red circle. Secondly, the red circle outlines the area of maximum signal strength. It hardly suggests that once you cross the line, the signal disappears. That's just the point where the signal BEGINS to attenuate... for non-engineers, that means it starts to diminish in strength. It gradually diminishes; it doesn't just stop cold at the red line. If the signal couldn't be received beyond the red line, there would be no point in drawing the purple and blue lines.

As to the credibility of Wikipedia contributors, I need to point out to you that there is a perception of credibility among the public, and the objection to stating that the signal is only received inside the red circle stems from Wikipedia being cited as a credible source. Therefore, I would think that you'd want to either be as accurate as possible, or, alternatively, present no information if it can't be reliably substantiated. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done, and the totally unnecessary (not to mention incorrect) judgmental language regarding the signal is being used as a weapon against the station. Incidentally, I see no such language being used in articles against other stations in the area with similar signal strength.

For example, WWWR is listed as serving Roanoke and Roanoke County, despite the fact that significant portion of Roanoke County falls outside the red circle. So, for whatever reason, a different standard was applied to WSLK, in spite of the fact that both stations have essentially the same signal strength. All we ask is that you apply the same standard to us... certainly not unreasonable.

208.69.225.125 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)