# Talk:WABN

This article is progressing nicely, with a good lead section and strong history info.  I'm no expert on radio articles, but it seems to me that the article needs a section about the station's programming.  I see the article as a solid C/borderline B - I think it just needs a section on programming to push it to solid B class.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I will add a programming section here in a couple.  Thanks for the review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree the article is in nice shape, but needs a section on programming. Looking at the wikiproject style guideline, this is the only thing missing. Barker had "automotive and fuel interests": I am not sure what this means. I think it should be explained or omitted. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Diannaa: That wasn't explained in the text.  I guess maybe he owned a car dealership and a gas station, perhaps?  Really not sure on that one.  But I see your point, and I'll remove that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been asked for some informal review comments. The following relate only to the lead, which is all I've read thus far:
First line: "Oldies and Classic Hits-formatted broadcast radio station" is extraordinarily convoluted. For a start, you don't need "broadcast" – that  is obviously what radio stations do. Even without that, the introductory sentence is clumsy, and you might consider rewriting it into a more reader-friendly form.
I broke up the first sentence on the page a little.  Reworded some things as well. - NH
"and is owned since 2004" → "and has been owned since 2004".
Done. - NH
Delete the second "since 2004" that appears at the end of the sentence.
Done. - NH
link "simulcasting", as some readers (me, for instance) are not familiar with the term.
Linked. - NH
You mention ownership by the Appalachian Educational Communication Corporation (AECC) twice, but in general the lead is very skimpy, and hardly fulfils the role of providing a summary of the entire article. Short though the article is, the lead would benefit from a bit of expansion.
Brianboulton: I tweaked the lede a little more, added some more about AECC in the text.  I have access to Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive.com and HighBeam, so I am going to check those for more information, past and present. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Correction, I will have access to aforementioned websites soon.  I guess everything is still being processed from Wikipedia to the various websites.  When I do, I will give a look-see for more information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll add more as time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the "Programming" section that Wehwalt, Mojo Hand, and Diannaa requested, which sources of course. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:WABN/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 07:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Will put up comments shortly!
It's a nice article and a good read, I have some early concerns. It's researched well and I feel with some small changes it should be good to go!

Lead
As per WP:Mos the lead is better without any footmotes. Remove the references and move them into the the prose!
Done. - NH
Rest looks good, Good job!
Thanks! :) - NH
WBBI era
I don't know much about the history but is there any history available for the time between between January 1957 and April 1957. I mean some early work, before the award?
Nothing, sorry.  Unfortunately, there is alot of lost information from that era on alot of stations. :( - NH
WABN era
WABN era - Present era, because its uncommon to mention the title of the page further in the headings.
Fixed. - NH
Programming
The first line here can be included in the history section, the broadcast through the course of the history of the station.
Fixed. - NH
These are just some stray observations I'll go through the prose once again, once I acquaint myself with the topic more!  NumerounovedantTalk 08:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Final comments
I really wished the article could be expanded! But from what I see the article has no issues with what it has right now. It looks in good state. See if there is anything at all you can add to it!  NumerounovedantTalk 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have Gale access now, I didn't then, lemme see what I can dig up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked Gale and my Newspapers access as well and couldn't find anything for the station as WABN or WBBI. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

@Neutralhomer: I really wish we (well mostly you and the contributors of the article, because I haven't really done anything here) could do more with this one, but I a glad to see a well maintained article despite the lack of information sources for the topic. Great work on that!  NumerounovedantTalk 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA! :)  I will keep working on the article, I never stop. :)  Hopefully soon, I can fill in some of those blank spaces in the history.  Again, thanks for the GA review. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)