# Talk:WLOK

This review is transcluded from Talk:WLOK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 08:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Giraffer (talk · contribs) 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
This is my first GA review. I am familiar with the GA criteria, having written three myself (linked from my userpage topicons), but just to be doubly sure I will ask a GA mentor to check over this review once I've completed it. If you have questions or suggestions for me at any point, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


### Criterion 1
in financial dire straits is quite idiomatic—maybe change to something like "with severe financial problems"? (MOS:WTW)
before being turned off on July 1 due to a "lack of enthusiasm" for the FM programming and its financial failure. might be missing a comma before "and" (otherwise it sounds like a lack of enthusiasm for the financial failure).
was charged with finding a buyer maybe it's just me, but using this definition of charged in a paragraph about litigation was slightly confusing the first time I read it. Minor point, though.
founder William F. Buckley Jr. However, WLOK needs either an extra period after Jr. or a semicolon and lowercase h.
He had pursued the station since 1975, initially backing off when Starr set a $1 million purchase price, but it eventually opted to sell under pressure to reduce its debt. use of "it" here (presumably to refer to Starr) is slightly unclear; maybe rephrase.
attempting to win the rights to channel 13 in Memphis when RKO General was to be replaced as owner of WHBQ-TV and running station WERD in Jacksonville, Florida, for four years before selling it at a loss. I think there should be a comma after WHBQ-TV.
No concerns with MOS compliance (1b) apart from my first point.

Reworded all areas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


### Other criteria
References 4, 10, 23, 25, 32, 33, 41, 48, 52, and 59 were randomly chosen for a spotcheck and all passed. No concerns with references (2a), inline citations (2b), original research (2c), or plagiarism (2d). Article is broad but focused (3a, 3b), neutral (4), and stable (5). All images are tagged with the appropriate licenses (6a) and are relevant (6b).


### Overall
Sammi Brie, thank you for your changes and your work on the article generally. Personally I'm happy to pass this, but as I mentioned above I'm going to ask another GA reviewer to double check before I do so. This isn't a reflection on the article, but on my reviewing experience. (I won't update the status, to save you a TP message). Giraffer (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You did a pretty good job, personally. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I've asked Femke if she can have a quick scan of the review before I finish. (I saw you were a mentor too, but that feels like cheating... :P). Giraffer (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Overall, the review looks good. Most reviewers give more comments around 1a, and I think the article does have some more issues with clarity and understandability. For instance:
* The sentence starting with "Their successful efforts" is quite tough to read. I can only think of a minor conciseness edit to change it: "on mail fraud charges" --> "for mail fraud".
* commingled --> is their a plain English synonym? I'm unfamiliar with the term
* There is some jargon around bankrupcy that can do with at least wikilinking (like personal bankruptcy, involuntary bankruptcy)
* The studios were just blocks from the Lorraine Motel, and when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed on April 4, 1968, death threats were made on Tom Watson, the station's only White employee, who had to be escorted out of the building --> I dislike semi-colons, but think it works if you put one after "Motel". Currently, the very long sentence is difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The place you see "commingled" is in mixing of funds or assets, so I don't think that's too far to keep the word. @Femke and Giraffer: I have made changes in the other areas to try and reword some of the denser parts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I read through the article one more time and all the changes look good. I did pick up on three more prose points, but that should be all.
The $146,000 owed Shipp by WHHM made Shipp WHHM's largest creditor and also was Shipp's largest asset is kind of awkward wording. I would flip the first part with "owed" around and move the "also", so maybe "The $146,000 WHHM owed Shipp made him their largest creditor, and was also his largest asset"?
Similarly, would give WHHM's creditors 33 cents of every dollar owed them "owed them" → "they were owed".
stave off competition from FM stations adopting the same format would clarify that "same format" here does not refer to the gospel format from earlier in the sentence.
Apologies for not spotting these earlier—thanks for your patience with me. Giraffer (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Giraffer Reworded each of those three areas. Yes, #1 is complicated: he was a creditor and a debtor! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Perfect. I'll pass this now. Congrats! Giraffer (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)