WMAQ (AM) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
While surveying the 5s range in Google News Archive's links (on LinkSearch), I came across this good-looking page on a Chicago radio station. I recall having spotted a similar topic early in 2007—and look how that one turned out! This time out, how far will the handiwork go?
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for you work and interest on this - I used to listen to WMAQ occasionally and did not know it was off the air. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and suggestions to follow - you already note the FA on the Mutual Broadcast system, which seems like a reasonable model (I would look at all FAs to see if other model FAs on stations exist - I know there is one on a British newspaper which may be useful too - see Sunderland Echo
- As currently structured, the article is all history. The MBS model FA has sections on programming by decade and on Legacy - I would think something like this could be done here too - Amos and Andy and Fibber McGee and Molly were two very well known radio shows.
- There also seemed to be little or no information on ratings, though there is some on the business side (sponsors)
- The lead is too short and is not really a good summary of the article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way Please see WP:LEAD
- Toolbox on the PR page finds several dab links that need to be fixed
- Article is WP:OVERLINKed
- Prose is OK, but would not pass FAC. For example It would be a few years (1927[21]) before the Daily News could buy out WQJ to make the 670 frequency a clear channel one;[22] Rainbo was one of the country's top ballrooms and Calumet's broadcasts brought the company much publicity.[23][24] First off, why not just say It would be 1927 before the Daily News could buy out WQJ to make the 670 frequency a clear channel.[21][22] Tighter and flows better.
- Second, a semicolon should be used when there is some sort of logical linkage between the two parts of the sentence connected by the ";" - I am mot sure what that connection is here. How does a clear channel flow into the Rainbo or how does the Rainbo follow logically from the purchase of WQJ? If there is a logical flow, it needs to be made clearer.
- Similarly in the lead, I would give the history in chronological order as it is easier to follow.
- Captions are one thing many readers look at before the rest of the article. Some are good, others are less than helpful - when I saw The former home of WMAQ and the Chicago Daily News. in the 1930s section I did not know what the building was and the photo file name and description also do not clarify this.
- Some things need refs like Sister station WMAQ-TV went on the air in 1948 and moved from an experimental station to a television pioneer. The call sign for the TV station was WNBQ a close match to the New York NBC TV station WNBC.
- Also needs a ref WMAQ eventually added more long-form news programming and some assorted call-in shows in the late 1990s.The highest rated long form show was Cameron and Langford – a nightly talk show with City Hall reporter Bill Cameron and WMAQ police beat reporter Larry Langford who grew up covering crime and politics in the 1960s. The two had a good mix of conservative versus liberal views and city versus suburbs.
- Make sure refs are from reliable sources - what makes this a RS?
- Or what makes Tom Gootee a reliable hsitorian of WMAQ?
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Avoid vague time terms like today in It was shipped to Chicago and became the acting main antenna until the original main antenna was rebuilt; it stands today at Bloomingdale.[2][58] "as of YEAR" works better
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)