Talk:WBAA

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

Fair use rationale for Image:Wbaa.JPG

edit
 

Image:Wbaa.JPG 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 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

WFUC

edit

It is unfortunate that this article treats WBAA-FM together with WBAA, as the FM station is much newer (granted in the late 1980s and licensed in the early 1990s), and it has an interesting history as the only station to which the FCC has ever granted an (arguably) obscene callsign, WFUC. The original callsign was assigned automatically, as was then the procedure; it was next in sequence after WFUB (97.3A Orange, now WJDF). 121a0012 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that KCUF (El Jebel, Colorado) is also an obscene call sign but your other point is a good one. I've added a split-apart tag to that effect. - Dravecky (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk05:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

5x expanded by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC).Reply

  •   Article is well-written, referenced appropriately with RS sources, follows policy, hooks are interesting and supported by inline citation. Well over 5x expanded (2568 B (430 words) → 14 kB (2352 words)). I lean towards ALT0, so if the closer closes this in time for April 4th that would be fantastic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

hi

edit

materialscientist can i say hi 24.49.51.202 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you may be looking for User_talk:Materialscientist PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:WBAA/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General

edit

Review meta comments

edit

@Lee Vilenski: Addressed or responded to all items. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.