This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

I'd like to suggest a section on how the Frequency Allocation charts are organized. Specifically, how are the allocations split into Primary and Secondary service? A brief description of the less self-explanatory legend items such as "FIXED" could also be included. I would enjoy initiating this section myself if it weren't for my complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
Cheers, Wolfworks 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The writing style here is horrible. The whole article would do well to be rewritten from scratch. 121a0012 ( talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:SOFIXIT is the canonical answer to such complaints. Anything specifically disturbing to your God-like eyes, or just a general uninformative rant? If you're looking for bad writing on the Wikipedia, you'll never be disappointed. ^{citation needed original research?} -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

So many bad articles, so little time. 121a0012 ( talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

If we each just do a little...no, that isn't working. I took out some of the really icky bits but this still needs work. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Articles appear to be covering the same ground with only minor changes in wording. McGeddon ( talk) 09:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Agree I see no clear reason for a separate stub covering essentially the same topic. – Sparkgap ( talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

What is the example for? What is it trying to demonstrate? Some prose would be helpful. Corwin.amber ( talk) 11:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply