Talk:WTCF/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|n|Each sentence is fine on its own, but taken together the article feels like a list, rather than like prose. For instance, of the 16 paragraphs in the article, seven of these are just a single sentence. (Almost all the rest contain just two sentences.) Eight of them begin "On [Month] [day], [year]," (once prepended by "Also"). Taken together, the prose is not up to GA quality.

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|n|Per MOS:LEAD, a lead needs to summarize all sections of the article without containing information not found in the article body. This lead does not do that. Much of the info in the lead is not found in the article (format and coverage), while almost nothing in the longest section (Pre-broadcast history) is in the lead. Also, the lead claims that Alex Media owns WTCF, but the body says Alex sold it.

}}

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|y|The References section is great.

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|y|It all seems appropriately sourced.

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|y|Not a problem.

}}

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|n|This is a very short article. I understand it's a small station, but there is almost no information about the format, specific shows, DJs (if any), marketing, etc. There's no information about community response or reception. If you want, you can look at what GAs and FAs for other radio stations do.

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|y|Not a problem.

}}

{{GATable/item|4|y|No neutrality problems, because "reception" isn't really covered.

}}

{{GATable/item|5|y|No problems.

}}

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|y|The image description and rationale are solid.

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|y|The one image is used appropriately.

}}

{{GATable/item|7|n|I'm afraid this article does not pass our GA criteria right now, and isn't likely to with the addition of substantial, new information, along with significant rewriting. If that happens, feel free to renominate it. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

}}