Talk:KQQZ/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MonkeyStolen234 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I recommend spending time trying to archive the rest of the links as much as possible

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Hi again @MonkeyStolen234: - sorry, I occasionally check GA reviews, and this one also makes me concerned. You have failed criteria 6, without leaving comments, but then passed the article? This isn't a best-of-6 situation, GAs need to meet all criteria. Can I ask you to read up on the criteria before completing more reviews, and also to leave more informative comments for the nominator to interact with? It's very uncommon for an article to be passed immediately. I've reviewed over 100 and only done this once or twice. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the article/GA status, @Nathan Obral: even at first glance, I think the use of quote boxes could be improved and maybe toned down, would you mind if I reviewed it again, so we can improve the article together and make it worthy of the green badge? Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Oh absolutely, and thank you in advance! I would appreciate as much additional proofing and revisions as possible, especially to maintain a neutral POV given the rather unique subject matter at hand (this clearly isn't a typical radio station article). The images issue is one that I'm still trying to figure out how to resolve, by nature I'm reluctant to upload any images unless they'd pass the pre-1978 test or are already available in the commons. Hopefully there's a way to add appropriate images under the fair-use clause. Nathan Obral (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, so the article looks stable - no obvious contention on talk page or in the article history - so that's good
• Copyvio check seems clear

• However, I worry that some of the quotations in quote boxes are excessively long (Anderson, Robberson). The article as a whole may not need four quote boxes.

• For other illustration, if the station had a logo that could be added to the infobox as fair use
• The infobox looks good
• The footnotes (a, b, etc.) don't seem to work? Or, at least, don't show up when hovering
• The callsign KHAD isn't introduced, so it (KHAD signed on from De Soto, Missouri on November 1, 1968) looks like a typo. Just adding "a precursor to KQQZ" or whatever is most accurate would work
• The next sentence, about the guy who died, seems to come out of nowhere - who is he and what relation does this bear?
• The following part doesn't seem to make sense? It seems to say that KRFT got five new towers because WOWO used to have them? But then says it still didn't get towers?

The upgrades were possible after a deal between Inner City Broadcasting Corporation and Federated Media several years earlier resulted in WOWO in Fort Wayne, Indiana giving up their Class I-B clear channel status in favor of a regional Class B status; while KRFT was already capable of adding night power, it required an additional set of towers and was not deemed feasible to construct at the time

• Perhaps a less evocative word than "consummated" could be used in After the deal was consummated?
• I'm not seeing the relevance of Franken told the Post-Dispatch that he had "never seen a station like this", while Boortz said being paired with Franken was "strange, but it's absolutely fine with me.", particularly the last quotation
• Add the (EMT) to the first mention of Entertainment Media Trust
• I'll get to the controversy stuff later :)

Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: I was able to get these revisions through. Decided to swap out the footnotes with the more traditional ref notes and those seem to be working better. Also did clarifying on the WOWO situation and how it was relevant here. Truncated those two long quotes for brevity sake and that they'd actually match up with the other two. The other two details (the person who died and the Al Franken/Neil Boortz quotes) were commented out, but they'll probably be removed. I should be able to find a KQQZ logo that will work here. :) Nathan Obral (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Nathan Obral: Thanks, Nate - picking back up: Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, Romanik's talk show, which had since been moved to KQQZ, began to receive local attention for - could this have 'meanwhile' removed and specify a date/year/whatever, so that the section is more standalone?
• I'm not seeing how Jose Alvarez is related to the radio station - was it mentioned (or done) on the show?
  • Same with the judges
• Hmm, I think the level of detail of how bad Romanik is does not belong here. Can a Bob Romanik page be made? At his bio, the intricacies of being a convicted criminal etc. are relevant, but as it doesn't seem to be necessary knowledge for his radio shows (bad as they are, too), the use here does slip into some non-neutral or at least BLP:related concerns.
  • So, the second paragraph from Inflammatory on-air content can probably be condensed to background, and some of the first and third. Most of the directly-related content in this section is the Alderman interview and everything after "Following the election, KQQZ flipped". If you know the details well, would it be possible to replace the rest with only the details needed to understand the implications of the relevant parts? Obviously the convicted felon part needs mentioning, but this could be brought up wherever the license issues are first discussed? Let me know what you think, or if this is unclear :)
• This later was expanded to claims Romanik had gone so far as negotiate a local marketing agreement between Entertainment Media Trust and Emmis Communications on September 2016 for WQQX—itself renamed KFTK (1490 AM). might be better as "This later was expanded to claims Romanik had gone so far as to negotiate a local marketing agreement between EMT and Emmis Communications in September 2016 for WQQX, which was also renamed KFTK (1490 AM)."
• the filing also asked the FCC to insure that EMT and Romanik not be allowed - is it not 'ensure'? And, I think it should be "...Romanik would not be allowed" in this context
• The last sentence about Slaten feels awkwardly stuck on, could it be better incorporated?

Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan Obral: To the above, in case the ping didn't work. Kingsif (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan Obral: - I haven't had a response, are you planning to finish this? Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: - I do plan to! So sorry for unintentionally going silent, real life kinda intruded and I almost totally forgot. ^^; Some of these edits will be relatively easy, others will require going back and double-checking newspaper trails. But this is 100% on my to-do list! Nathan Obral (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan Obral: Any updates, Nate? Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nathan Obral: It's (wow) been a few months, where is this at? Kingsif (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)