Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Talk page and edit history show no instability
 * Prose is appropriate in tone, and neutral
 * In some places, fluffy language is used, e.g. instead of naming people they are described - just use the name unless their profession is their main relevance (in the case of Dana International, it isn't)
 * In some places, commas are needed to make sentences easy to interpret - I suggest going through it all, I can do this or nominator can. Examples:
 * Additionally the rules were modified... (after "Additionally")
 * Following the confirmation of the twenty-three competing countries the draw to determine... (after "countries")
 * I don't believe the album cover art is acceptable under fair use, as it is not either primary identification in an article about the album, nor substantially different from the contest logo to warrant further identification (cover art specific and WP:NFCCP 3a; I've run into this at some of my GA noms). And even if it had met the latter criteria, there is no significant information on the album to really argue it is worthwhile depicting (violating WP:NFCCP 8 & WP:NFCI 1).
 * Otherwise, the images are all free or acceptable use.
 * Images all relevant - Siggaard dubious (especially with poorer image quality), but being a previous contestant as well as announcer elevates the relevance to warrant inclusion
 * Portrait images need to be scaled (add  to image code)
 * Other illustration - infobox, tables, lists - is all appropriate and improves the article
 * I may ask for an accessibility check on the detailed voting results
 * Mixed/inconsistent referencing style; it is possible to incorporate the O'Connor and Roxburgh books as refs rather than separately.
 * Copyvio check looks clean
 * Some references can be improved with translated titles and archive links, other parameters filling out.
 * Spot-check 10% of references for accuracy/adherence (version):
 * 14 ✅
 * 22 ✅ - but, I feel its duplication (at end of sentence and in note also at end of sentence) is unnecessary. Also consider moving the note that uses it to after the (other) cites at the end of the sentence.
 * 38 - the source does confirm Hilmarsson was the singer for Iceland in 1988 and 1991, and it confirms he provided backing vocals in 1999, but it doesn't say he was backing vocals for Selma. Another source will be needed to corroborate this.
 * 41 - the article says Fors represented Sweden at Eurovision as part of Blond, while the source only says he won Melodifestivalen as part of Blond. Of course, the statement in the article seems true; I suggest adding this source (or another like it) to supplement sourcing for the statement.
 * 49 - I can't speak for the other two sources used here, but this one seems to contradict the paragraph. The article says while lifting the trophy and feigning difficulty due to its weight[, Dana International] lost her balance, while the source quotes Dana International saying For 20 years people ask me if I did it on purpose. I was standing in a Jean Paul Gaultier dress. The director was stepping on it. I tried to step back and I fell. Does this anecdote need further checking, or should it be cut down to have less explanation (and less room for inaccuracy)?
 * 57 - the source confirms Siggaard represented Denmark three times, but does not mention that she announced the points in 1999. I suggest adding ref #60, which does.
 * 60 ✅
 * 83 - the source seems to confirm that ER (in the source, ERR) was an Estonian partner broadcaster for the contest, or sponsoring the artists, at least. It doesn't contain any other information in the table row, presumably in the other two sources. Of course, if the ER channel Raadio 2 being a broadcaster is supported in one or both of the other sources, then this dubious one is also superfluous in sourcing that information, and it should be removed.
 * 87 - confirms that France 3 was a broadcaster for France in some capacity, not necessarily that which the table describes. The two other sources for this table row may mean the source is unnecessary.
 * 99 - same as the above, but PBS and Malta.
 * 111 ✅ - confirms TVE1 (TVE/La Primera) broadcasting and José Luis Uribarri commentating on the contest. Tick rather than question mark as this is most of the information, but this is AGF that TVE Internacional is mentioned in one of the other two sources (with the third perhaps unnecessary?) and, looking at this record, I'm not sure how much good faith can be granted.
 * 119 - confirms Yle broadcasting and Jani Juntunen commentating. There are six references here combined for three rows of information. This source seems to relate to the top row, so at least splitting the refs up to be aligned with their info would be a step to making it easy to verify.
 * 125 - nothing relevant to the article in the source.
 * 136 - the article says The Barbara Dex Award, created in 1997 by fansite House of Eurovision, was awarded to the performer deemed to have been the "worst dressed" among the participants. The source says The [Barbara Dex Award] was founded to pay homage to Belgium's 1993 contestant [...] Songfestival.be, which took over the awards process after Eurovision 2016, have re-cast it in a more positive light. - no mention of 1997 or House of Eurovision. I assume these are in the other source used for the sentence, but then this one is unnecessary. Of course, it also seems contradictory. Again, do we need less information or a fact-check here?
 * This spot check has revealed that >5% of sources are poorly adhered to, with even more being dubious in utility. Of course, that's the raw figures taking the 7 bad ones here out of all 139. If the source check is representative of the whole article, that would be 50% of sources that are not adhered to/article text not accurate to source.
 * On the positive, no close paraphrasing found in the spot check!

Overall

 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Quickfail - the article will need substantial work to meet criteria. Here, the article text adherence to its sources is not good. I would suggest a full examination of all sources and the text they cite before renomination. I have left comments covering most other GA criteria, for other improvements to work on as well. Kingsif (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I have to say however, for the record because it has to be said somewhere, that I have found the Good Article nomination process for this article to be one of the most disheartening things I've yet seen on Wikipedia. I have been waiting since July 2022 for a review of this article, it has already been reviewed and then rescinded because the previous reviewer was a sockpuppet using ChatGPT, and now after waiting for so long it's been quick-failed. Additionally I believe in many cases your review has encroached outside of what is required for a Good Article and beyond the scope of the specific criteria specified for GA review; e.g. requests for tweaks to image code, changing the way that references are laid out. I believe that you have been unduly harsh in quick-failing this article; given your review above I believe the majority of the points you raised can be easily solved, and there is nothing about this article which is inherently rotten, but instead of working with me to improve the article and pass it, you've decided to quick-fail it after it had been waiting around for nine months. I will be escalating this review, as I don't believe the result is justified and I would like a second opinion to either confirm or deny this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right that most of the points can be easily solved. I never said they couldn't, and in the comment you are replying to I note that they are for other improvements. What is definitely a reason to quickfail, and the reason I gave, is that the article text's adherence to its sources is abysmal. This is something not debatable. I can understand you feeling disheartened - I've had a GAN open for 9 months (I think it was, indeed, exactly 9 months) be quickfailed, and I wasn't happy. But if you read my comment instead of let your emotions dictate, I think you'll understand. I'm making this edit to add, because I don't want this reply to sound harsh, that it's just very much a hard line on the source issue. I also can't imagine your disappoint after the mess with the other review. I would be happy to help out, I've reviewed other Eurovision articles and got a related one to GA myself, but feel this should be re-nominated after sourcing has been improved. When there is a big, glaring, issue, I find the pressure of an open review can be detrimental for the nominator in getting the work done. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate now with a calmer head that failing was probably the right call, however frustrating that still remains. It just wasn't the most pleasant thing to wake up to and to see in my inbox (living in Ireland so on UTC+1, both that someone had finally started the review after 9 months only for the immediate realisation it's been failed. None of this is on you, you're just doing your job, more just an explanation of my frame of mind when I left the above reply. When I find the time I will definitely take on board the improvement points above and submit this for a second pass at GA. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply; feel free to ask me to review it when you nominate it again :) Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)