Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1990/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I shall take this on.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Where was the 1989 contest held in the Location section?
 * I don't particularly see how the location of the previous event is relevant to this article. Can you add more of your thinking on this?
 * What kind of renovations were needed?
 * I've done an extensive search for this and unfortunately from the sources that are available I can't find an answer for this question.
 * Per MOS:PF I do think the rehersals paragraph could do with some more citations.
 * Reading MOS:PF I'm not sure how there is a violation here, given that MOS entry is about how references are presented, which I believe is met consistently through the article. Is there another policy you are trying to refer to?
 * "During the week of rehearsals problems arose regarding the choice of presenters for the event", MOS:COMMA needed
 * Is there a reason why only the spokespeople of 3 countries are known? Didn't they announce who was on the phone/screen during the event like they do nowadays? Would it be possible if we're able to dig a little deeper and flesh that out please?
 * Because the voting was conducted only through telephone lines (there were no in-person satellite links until 1994) the hosts would generally refer to the spokespersons only by the city/country in which they were based. Finding reliable references for this as well has proved very difficult, as the majority of sources available have generally relied on Wikipedia for this information, therefore breaking WP:CIRCULAR. I have spent a great deal of energy and time trying to find reliable references to back up any claims which were present on Wikipedia and unfortunately these are the only entries that are currently available to us right now.
 * More to come.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Source 4, the publisher is a bare web address
 * Also what makes it a WP:RS? It looks a bit like a tourist blog.
 * Ref now replaced with two separate refs covering the different material which they are verifying. Hopefully this resolves this issue.
 * Source 37, as per WP:METRO, the Metro is considered unreliable and should not be used. This will need to be replaced.
 * ✅ Hopefully the new reference is suitable.
 * Source 45, the archiving site is a web address
 * I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. Can you explain further what the issue is?
 * Its using a web address as the publisher rather than the full name.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please confirm that you are referring to the correct reference? The publisher listed on source 46 (previously 45 before the changes as explained above) is "European Broadcasting Union". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 47. "e-newspaperarchives.ch.".  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. "e-newspaperarchives.ch" is the platform on which this source is hosted; the actual work is a newspaper listing from Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and this is listed as such within this source. Per the site's About page, it is consistently referred to only by its URL, so I'm not sure how best to change this while remaining accurate. I can potentially remove the "via" field from this source if that makes things simpler. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That clarifies it for me so I therefore see no bars so I am happy to approve this for GA status. Well done!  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Source 67, needs the padlock icon to be consistent with the rest of the article.
 * I am able to access this without any issues. There doesn't appear to be any subscription or access blocks in place that would require flagging at least on my side, and I've checked that I am not logged in with an account or anything like that.
 * I am able to access this without any issues. There doesn't appear to be any subscription or access blocks in place that would require flagging at least on my side, and I've checked that I am not logged in with an account or anything like that.


 * In all, it seems very well written . If you're able to sort the above mentioned issues, give me a ping and i'll have another look.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 07:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough review! Comments above related to each item. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)