Talk:WWCW/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Joint review with WFXR

Sammi Brie, done with this one, didn't take as long because of the transclusion. There are certainly many DYK opportunities for both these articles- RCB fought so hard to get channel 27, then just... sold it? The CEO of a company interested in buying the stations turned out to be a criminal? Truly some crazy stuff! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	To this mix was added the Fox network... - reorder to "Added to this mix was the Fox..." Fixed Prose is clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Same as in WFXR, any reason for the many invis comments? See WFXR review No fiction or words to watch. Substation table is appropriate, lead is well-written. No MOS violations.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most citations are to various local newspapers via newspapers.com, no concerns there. Others include official FCC reports and information sites like RabbitEars- also all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't see a need for a thorough spotcheck, article is well-cited to varying sources. No OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the station's early history, time during simulcasting with WFXR, and other technical info. I'll note that "Merger with WVFT" is appropriately transcluded from the article for WFXR.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is properly PD tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Another image should be added besides the logo. Perhaps an image of the early Thaxton Mountain tower, or adding the WFXR logo somewhere. You could also add the WWCW logo somewhere to WFXR is you wanted. I would love more images. But there is no free image of Thaxton Mountain available. I do search for relevant free images while writing these articles. Sometimes, you turn up nothing. (I just finished a whopper at WFTV and have no images for it.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Fair enough then. Image is relevant; no caption required.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.