Talk:CKMP-FM

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Neutralhomer in topic GA Review

Fair use rationale for Image:CFUL-FM.png edit

 

Image:CFUL-FM.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Station's Format edit

Whoever listed this station as a 'Rhythmic contemporary' format, needs to look up the definition of Rhythmic contemporary.

CFUL's playlist still consists a hefty blend of rock music (although it's no longer its primary focus)along with the pop, hip-hop and dance. The station switched formats in an attempt to go head to head with CIBK (Vibe 98.5) as CIBK is Calgary's most listened to FM station and is number 2 in the Calgary radio market after CHQR (AM 770), while Fuel FM ranked last, tied with CKMX. This is according to the latest BBM numbers. Here's the link: http://www.bbm.ca/en/BBM_Canada_S2_2009_Top-line_Radio_Report_final.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summersky77 (talkcontribs) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    Prose is fine, no copyvios, no problems with spelling or grammar.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    No problems here.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    No problems here.
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:  
    Reference #20 is 404'd, that will need changed. I would like to see a couple more references for the "breast implant" and "Bank It or Burn It" controversies. The second and fourth paragraphs of the "2014 'QuickHitz' re-launch" section, I feel, need a couple more references as well.
    C. No original research:  
    No OR.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Covers the major aspects of the station....
    B. Focused:  
    ...while staying focused.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Article written with an NPOV.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    No edit wars.
  6. 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:  
    A logo for the station is typically used on the page (within the infobox). One can be found here. If possible, a photo of the station's studio building would be nice, but not necessary.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    No images provided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Failed: Sorry, but with no movement on the article page or this GA page in the 48 hours since the review, I can't pass the article in it's current state. Please update the article with the above corrections and try again. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply