Talk:WCSP-FM

WCSP-FM has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 13, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WCSP-FM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Radio Stations High‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

WWB Too (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of C-SPAN.

Proposed replacement draft

I propose to replace the current version of this article with another version, which I have researched and drafted over the past few weeks. It can be found in my user space, here: User:WWB_Too/WCSP-FM. The current article is not a terrible one, but it misstates some information and lacks any inline references. The new draft fixes these problems, as well as expanding the article somewhat and restructuring it into logical headings and subheadings.

As a point of disclosure, I work with C-SPAN's communications team, and have been helping them improve other articles related to the network. In the past I've asked for specific permission from editors involved with relevant WikiProjects and, after sometimes a week or more of waiting, have always had these new versions approved. This draft is no different from the others in terms of reliable sourcing, neutral wording and a careful eye to including only material that should be considered encyclopedic. Because I don't think there is anything controversial about this topic, I am inclined to make these edits directly. However, just in case anyone is watching this page closely and wishes to comment, I'll wait at least 24 hours to do so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait. Looks fine. If anyone takes issues, they'll revert per WP:BRD. --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I've just moved it over now. WWB Too (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WCSP-FM/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but I am placing it on hold so that you can address a few concerns.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
date format should be consistent - either day-month-year (1 January 2010) or month day, year (January 1, 2010) -- but don't mix.

"Its studios are located on Capitol Hill in C-SPAN’s headquarters." should be "Its studios are located near Capitol Hill in C-SPAN’s headquarters." Many people would define "Capitol Hill" as being the Capitol and associated office buildings. C-Span is closer to Union Station.

"As of 28 July 2010 C-SPAN Radio can be " should be "As of July 28, 2010, C-SPAN Radio can be" - comma and date format.

"accessed via any mobile phone, " should be "accessed via any phone" - mobile phone not required.

"rebroadcast of the Sunday morning talk shows, " should be "rebroadcast of five Sunday morning talk shows, "

"spoken in session during several of the Court's most influential rulings," should be "spoken during oral arguments for several of the Court's most influential cases,"
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
In cites to hardcopy newspapers, please include the page number. In cites to electronic newspapers, please include the URL.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
You might want to include that starting in 2010, in addition to the historic SCt oral arguments, C-SPAN selects one current oral argument each week for broadcast on Fridays.

"Today in Washington" is broadcast weekdays from 5 to 7 p.m.

Archiving of radio programs on c-span.com

Can you describe the geographic range of its radio signal? It goes south past Fredericksburg and west almost to Front Royal. I am sure there must be a source describing its range.

Please consider covering the HD Mulitcasting.

Please consider mentioning "Prime Minister's Question Time" in the programming section

Before the Supreme Court started releasing oral argument tapes on a regular basis, C-SPAN would periodically ask the court to release tapes for cases of high public interest. E.g., http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/116008-C_SPAN_Seeks_Oral_Argument_Tapes_in_Fox_Swearing_Case.php
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is great work. Thanks Racepacket. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA update + reply

Many thanks to Racepacket for the constructive suggestions on improving the article so that it can be considered for GA status. The prose and formatting issues raised have been corrected, in line with the above-requested amendments. With regard to the page numbers missing from citations, these have now been added where possible or the original cite has been replaced with another suitable reference which has a more complete citation available. I should note: the one from Audio Week does not have a page number and one was not given on Nexis (whence I sourced it) and, as the online journal is by subscription-only, I am not able to provide a URL for the article itself. However, the material covered by this citation is also contained in the Littleton reference; although the Audio Week citation isn’t as complete as we might like, I still figure it’s better to have more citations than fewer.

Meanwhile, I’ve followed your suggestions for expanding the coverage of the article: the geographic range of the FM signal and the availability of HD channels has now been included in the "History" section, with relevant and verifiable references. The "Programming" section now has a mention of "Today in Washington" and "Prime Minister's Question Time" as regular programs, with a reliable source.

For two of the proposed additions, I’ve done some digging, and here’s what I’ve found: I did find a reference to the change in the Supreme Court’s audio rules and C-SPAN’s subsequent usage thereof. However, I could not find a suitable reference for C-SPAN airing Supreme Court arguments on Fridays (the only reference I could find is the C-SPAN schedule, which changes daily) and in any case, as the schedule works out, it is sometimes delayed past Fridays. Second, I am told that C-SPAN does not archive all of the radio broadcasts, and this makes sense because I couldn’t find a source when I went looking for one.

Let me know what you think of the changes so far and any further suggestions would be welcome. If you think it passes GA now, I’ll still try to resolve those last few details. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see items marked in red. I read MOS as requiring a consistent date format within article text and within references, but not between them. On this basis, I will pass the article. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]