Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1992/GA1

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 22:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am excited to review this article. The 1990s were before my time but I have watched Eurovision since I was a child. Though being British that can be quite a upsetting experience. I will make a series of suggestions for improving this article. Please use the ✅ template or strikethrough to indicate a problem has been dealt with. Add any comments or questions after the points.--Llewee (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The chosen venue was the Malmö Isstadion, an indoor ice hockey arena constructed in 1970, the former home stadium of the Malmö Redhawks ice hockey team and which had also previously hosted concerts by Frank Sinatra and Julio Iglesias amongst others." - I think it might be helpful for readability to break this sentence up (e.g ...ice hockey team. The venue had previously hosted concerts..).


 * "and thus Sweden and the European mainland, from 1999" - Sweden is part of the landmass covered in the linked article. Maybe clarify that it is "the bulk of the European Mainland".


 * "saw each country given a 40-minute slot on stage, followed by a press conference." - I assume this was a mock press conference?
 * No this would be a series of press conferences in which the delegations would take part where questions would be posed by the various journalists that were in the host city to cover the event for media outlets. For context you can see how this works for present-day contest at https://eurovision.tv/mediacentre/accreditation.


 * "the Nöjesteatern [sv] in a performance that" - I think there needs to be an additional apostrophe before in.


 * Is any information available about what kind of viewing figures the contest received or how the media reacted in the countries where it was broadcast (e.g newspaper reviews)?
 * Given the timeframe of the contest, particularly as this was before the Internet became as widespread as it is now, it can sometimes be tricky to find available sources, and particularly free sources, that would cover information such as this, but I can take another look.

That all for now. Once these issues have been dealt with I will do the source and copyright checks.
 * Thanks for picking this up! Comments above have been dealt with to the best of my ability. Please do let me know if you have any other questions or comments for me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

, I have done a number of spot checks on sources most of which were fine. However, source 31 which is citing Ireland winning the Eurovision song contest seems to be talking about 1984. It's easy to accidently put citations in the wrong place, especially when you have lots of sources covering similar content. I would suggest checking through the citations to insure their aren't any similar mistakes.
 * Thanks for raising that, I've now corrected the reference to point to the right page (it was missing a "-1" at the end. Looking at the remaining refs I'm confident that there are no further errors and that all content is sufficiently sourced, however please do let me know if you have any other concerns. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have also put the article through Earwig Copyvio Detector. It didn't note any issues - eurovision.tv/story/revisit-malmo-1992 got 20% while the rest got less than 10%. You can see the full results here - (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Eurovision+Song+Contest+1992&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0).--Llewee (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing this. The 20% figure seems to be mostly down to a lot of word phrases which would be difficult to change, e.g. the presenters' names, various song titles, organisations, and "Eurovision Song Contest" as a phrase. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: