# Talk:WPDX (AM)

History
It feels like there is something missing right at the start, there were obviously preparations before the events you describe at the start of the station's history. I mean, something had to precede testing equipment.
 Done: Did my best on the very beginning with what little information I had.  I was able to find the initial application from September '54.  That application listed some interesting information about what the owner thought the estimated constuction, first year cost and revenue would be. -NH
I'd give the date, not relate to Xmas.
 Done -NH
There's an issue with the constant flow of On x date, such and such happened (same goes for "In 1957," … .  Break it up a bit.
 Done: I did my best with these, switched things up putting the dates or year at the end, some in the middle of the sentence, some I left at the beginning (so we didn't have a "date/year at the end of the sentence" problem).  I also reworded a few to drop the year (if there were two sentences about the same year).  I even started one sentence as "two years later", as I only had the year for that sentence and the previous one.  My choronolical writing is problem and I am working on it, but sometimes I fall back into the old habit. -NH
The recitation of awards reads a bit dryly.  It might help to put the emphasis on the coverage and say what that disaster was, then mention that it won an award for the coverage. The major problem with this article is the way it reads as almost a recitation of facts in a chronology.
 Done: The Farmington Number 9 coverage was tweaked with more information, I'm not sure what they did to deserve the award in 1970. -NH
"Associated Press Radio-Television Association" Is there an abbreviation?  Even "the association" would save you from repeating that mouthful three lines later.
 Done: They go by APRTA, which I wasn't aware of, so I switched that up. -NH
"WCLG was joined by FM sister station, WCLG-FM, on September 28, 1974" What does that mean?  Also, there's a missing article before "FM".
 Done: I switched that sentence up a bit. -NH
Can the fracas over WVU sports and other issues be clarified?
 Not done: At the moment, no.  This is an ongoing situation/story, so it won't be able to be clarified until the FCC gets done doing whatever it is they do. -NH
"His later career would take him to the CBS Radio program "Renfro Valley Folks" and at Tampa, Florida station WDAE." the "at" in the final clause is the big issue.  It should be "to", but I'd like you to look it over so.
 Done: I rewrote the first part of that sentence and changed that "at" to a "to". -NH
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made some edits please double-check I didn't change any meanings.  You should probably explain why it is a problem if the two corporations have close operational control.  Is there an antitrust issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response, been working on another article in the sandbox.  Anywho, it is mentioned in the Charleston Gazette article that WVRC buying WCLG-AM/FM would be "possibly in violation of FCC regulations".  FCC regulations only allow a certain amount of stations to be owned by one company in one particular market. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, figured as much, thanks.  The only other thing I can think of is that the lede is awfully short.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have never been good with ledes, but I will give it a shot.  Gimme a couple minutes, let me see what I can rattle out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It's short, but it touches on all the main high and low points in the article.  I left out the WVRC/IMG sale situation as it is ongoing and felt it would get kinda word-y. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:WCLG (AM)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Disambig links: OK
Reference check:  OK
Comments: A quaint little article, it covers the notable aspect of the station's history and touches upon the interest conflict that arose in a neutral manner. The programming "as of" should be updated to reflect the 2014 programming schedule, if it changed. No part of the text contained any prose errors that jumped out at me, which was a good think, but I do wonder why the "see also"  section contains links to Google Streetview. I believe the see also section is only for other Wikipedia articles; I'd consider moving these to external links. I think there would be no objections to passing it after these changes were made. Placing on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Google StreetView links were me just adding everything.  They aren't necessary to the whole of the article and the one for the studio isn't necessary at all, since I have a photo of that now.  I will remove those posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Chris, if I may, how's the review coming? It seems to me that it won't take much time to wrap this up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Homer left a few comments on my talk page. I was wondering if I should wait till the sale closes so he can update, but I doubt it would be an issue at this point. I wonder if a few more sentences for the lead would help out that one last aspect because the original format and genre switch are not covered and the CN broadcast details should also be covered to meet the WP:LEAD aspect. I've been becoming a bit tougher on that standard as of late, but I really can't find any other issues in which to hold it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I can add something about the original format into the lede.  What do you mean by "CN broadcast details"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
That it carries "Cumulus Media Networks' satellite-fed Classic Hits network". Sorry to abbreviate awkwardly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries.  That's what I thought you were meaning, but I wanted to make sure.  I will add that as well to the lede. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Done and done.  I added the Cumulus mention to the lede, added what the original format of the station was, how the station switched formats several times in the 70s and 80s.  Short of the sale being closed today (and the FCC ruling on it), I don't see any further changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. I greatly appreciate your review on the article. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

The "Sale" section is quite long: I suggest that this is divided. There are also one or two-sentence paragraphs that should be merged together.
There's a LOT there, but I broke it up into different sections for post-sale information.
There are uncited passages in the "Sale" section.
Corrected this and added sources.
The lead is too short and does not describe all important aspects of the article.
Not sure why the lede got cut down like it was.  I pulled the old lede out that I used in 2015, added some more current information to it, and readded it.
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Give me a couple, let me see what I can find. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: Update: OK, I made the changes you requested above.  Let me know if you need anything else.  Be advised, I am not here as much as I used to be, so if I don't immediately respond, give me a couple and I will try to get to you as quickly as I can. :)  Also, Saturday, I have work from 9a to 5p, so I probably will be dead on my feet.  Just letting you know. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: There's no rush to make improvements: I don't send articles to GAR if someone is willing to work on it. However, I do not have additional concerns, and my comments above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: Awesome! :)  Then I think we are golden. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: My concerns have been resolved and I don't have any additional comments. Z1720 (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)