Talk:KWKW/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: @Nathan Obral: Will be taking a look at this shortly (shortly being within "now", if not within 24 hours - I know Wikmedians dont like to wait and after all competence is required - I learn from my mistakes).

Will ping again when done.

Is it well written?

As usual use your browsers find and replace function.

• Why is KFAC bolded in the lead?

• See MOS:BOLD: This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. In this case, there used to be an article KFAC (radio station).
• For added context, this page amounted to both a total rebuild of KWKW and rewrite/ceremonial merger of KFAC (radio station). This revision of the latter preceded our rewrites and had been separated from the article 15 years earlier, predating policy on station articles. Some places, including this entry on FormatChange.com, link to KFAC (defunct), the original page title.

• In the lead remove the "itself", the setence can be KWKW is Southern California's oldest Spanish language radio station which I think flows better.

• This is where things start getting weird, because it was the oldest radio station on another frequency and license altogether.
• Not only that, this is the third iteration of KWKW, but the adoption of Spanish-language programming occurred when it was on the 1300 AM frequency.

It's OK, its good enough as it is already.

• Remove the phrase The first radio station purchased by Lotus in 1962, so it flows better (if you think its not an important part of the lead)

• Moved out of lead.

• and when the Great Depression hit, a fall in donations led to the station becoming unsustainable for the institute to operate. should be reworded to and the Great Depression led to a fall in donations, which meant the station was unsustaniable for the institute to operate

•  Done

• unlimited time I'm not sure what this means, I am not a broadcasting expert. I'm assuming it means 24/7 broadcasting, but if so it would just be more clear to say 24/7 instead of "unlimited"

• You'd be correct, but this was the wording of the day. Many stations still signed off at night, so unlimited time means that they had the capability to broadcast at night.
• KFAC no longer needed to have to sign off at regular intervals in order for KGEF to broadcast, as that station suspended operations, then had its' license revoked. KFAC did extend into 24/7 broadcasting, but did not do so immediately. Hopefully that makes some sense.

• All told it is maybe better to just remove this? The sentence flows better without it.

•  Done

• The sentence with "disaster struck" should be converted to The KWKU nominal main studio in Pomona would prove critical to getting KWKW back on the air after a major fire at the Sunset Vine Tower,which was home to the Lotus cluster, caused extensive electrical damage to the building on December 6, 2001. Before the fire, the building was deemed unsafe by fire officials.

• I reworded this but not the way you suggested because the fire caused the building to be deemed unsafe. (Context) There really should be a page about the building, to be quite honest... 🤔

• Remove the "however" out of The AM, however, or at least put the "however" first.

• Reworded.

• KCRW has a WP article shouldn't it be blue linked

• It already is earlier in the page.

Wow, you work fast! Usually it takes a couple of days for people to get back to me. The policy says 7 days, but I dont see the need for 7 days when all the comments have been resolved so quickly. I'll wait for comments from @Nathan Obral: before passing, just to make sure all the edges are covered Rlink2 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Just threw in my two cents. Thank you for the kind words. :) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Above commentary makes sense, will pass.

To be clear, I do a through review on each and every GA I do. In this case, it nearly took me an hour and a half to get through it all. This is amazing work, keep it up. Rlink2 (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very, very much for your hard work. \o/ Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it verifiable with no original research?

Yes.

One link was dead (I fixed it already). The rest of the citations seem good, consistent and clean.

Is it broad in its coverage?

Yes.

Is it neutral?

Yes

Is it stable?

Yes

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Yes

@Sammi Brie: @Nathan Obral:: as usual, good work.