Talk:WAKR/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article WAKR in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Babegriev (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
· · ·

Article Assessment 15:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section is, for the most part unremarkable. The content is well-cited and is an effective summation of the article's contents. There are a good number of WikiLinks included which integrates the section into the encyclopedia. Likewise, the info box is concise and provides efficient and condensed information.

History Section

This section consumes a large majority of the article, and is very well-written. That being said, at times, the content included under the various sub-headings often goes into too much depth for this particular article. Notably, at the beginning, a lot is said about S. Bernard Berk, sometimes going into territory that is beyond the scope of the article proper. I would encourage the creation of a page specifically for Berk, given his impact on the Akron area, however this content is not best suited in an article about WAKR. Keeping the most important information about Akron and his impact on the station is a given, however, speaking to his career as an inventor (for example) is stretching past the realm of WAKR. This sentiment can be expressed later with Freed, Muni and Greer. Their later successes which impacted WAKR can be summarized while not going into biographical detail which should be reserved for their respective articles.

Resolved

 – Babegriev (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, the link to for the 1948 FCC freeze links to the FCC article, and not to the subsection regarding the freeze. I would suggest inserting the link FCC#Freeze of 1948 to direct to the proper subsection.

Resolved

 – Babegriev (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Illustrations

This article is a remarkable exemplar of exceeding the expectations of GA criterion 6. The images selected are appropriate to the article, and relate to the content very well. All images free or contain a fair-use rationale. Additionally, the captions are detailed and effective summaries of the image and why they are relevant to the article.

MOS

The layout, adheres to MOS:LAYOUT, however, Further Readings is implemented as a sub header under References; this should be an independent heading instead of a subsection, but in the same place in the article. Spelling and grammar are unremarkable, as is the composition of prose. Source citations are uniform and detailed, and inline citations are relevant and link to appropriate sources for verifiability. Kudos for the numerous reliable sources.

Resolved

 – Babegriev (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional Suggestions

While reading through, there were many opportunities for new articles, lists and/or redirects. Ones that stood out were S. Bernard Berk, List of WAKR Programs, Group ONE Broadcasting and TV23, among others. Also, I would recommend perusing a future in the FA and DYK areas of Wikipedia.

Overall Thoughts and Conclusion

This article is in very very good shape and overall is very impressive. The article is by no means lacking any content that is vital for its function, and instead suffers from the contrary. That being said, there should be a few adjustments made to the history section of this article in an attempt to condense it a bit, as noted above. Although this content is well written, and would be very appropriate additions to their respective topic articles, as a reader, I struggle to make the connection between some details and this particular article. WP:TOOMUCH provides a better explanation for the rationale of reduction.

Besides this, the article is well-written, remarkably sourced and is a very interesting read overall. As noted by Neutralhomer all the way back in March, this article is unquestionably Good Article material.

Summary of Review Results

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: Prose are written clearly and fluently in the native language of the wiki. Content is professional and encyclopedic. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: Corrected per above It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Citations are comprehensive, from reliable sources, and plentiful. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: There is no evidence of Original Research per WP:OR d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: No evidence of WP:COPYVIO or plagiarism. Per Earwig's checker, comparisons are from source quotes which are properly cited. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: The article is comprehensive and covers most all areas of major import regarding the subject. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: Corrected per above. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: While this article is not of controversial nature, the article is written from an unbiased and neutral POV. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: Article is stable, no notable edit wars. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: All images contain copyright tags, and non-free images contain appropriate rationales. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: Captions are appropriate in length and detail.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: Congratulations! Babegriev (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
· · ·

Extension of GA Review

@Nathan Obral: Due to the very long time that this article has spent on the backlog for GA reviews, I feel that the review period should be extended an additional 14 days. I noticed your first edits a while ago to resolve criterion 1b, and assume that you will be continuing at some point in revising the history section. I'm more than glad to discuss any concerns that you have, so please do not hesistate to respond here or on my talk page.

Thank you again for your contributions! Babegriev (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Update 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Per recent revisions, following the above suggestions, this article meets the 7 GA criteria. See updated review above.