Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Infobox

 * Is there a reference for the presenters? For the articles on the past two years, it's been sourced to Eurovision Broadcasting Union articles; maybe this could be a reference.
 * This source is referenced in the infobox regarding who presented the show. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference #20 describes Jon Ola Sand as "Executive Supervisor of the contest", so maybe that could be linked from the "Executive supervisor" parameter as a reference.
 * Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This could be a source for the executive producer and and host broadcaster.
 * Well done, is added. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the other 2 GA articles and, the presenters have been cited within the infobox.  However the Exec Supervisor and Exec Producer paramters have not used citations.  They did previously, but were advised to remove them as they were not necessary.  I'll add the source however for the presenters.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, I have already added one for executive producer, so if you could do the rest that would be wunderbar. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you haven't signed any of your comments using, which you really should be doing, even though this is a GA review, we should still be following the talk page guidelines.  Also we were advised by two different GA reviewers during the 2012 and 2013 reviews that it was not necessary to add citations for both the Executive Supervisor and Executive Producer in the infobox section.  So I'm inclined to say that format should follow the same method and not cite them, in order to keep a uniform consistency throughout WikiProject Eurovision.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and, according to Help:Infobox, infoboxes should contain data that is already cited elsewhere in the article. Another words, the citations would be included in the main body of the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. That might be why the other reviewers removed citations from the infobox during their GAR in 2012 and 2013.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. It's much like not using sources in the lead if the information is already cited in body text of the article. Well spotted, Wesley Mouse. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "infoboxes should contain data that is already cited elsewhere in the article." —- Yes, but the information in this case isn't written elsewhere in the article, let alone cited there. Jon Ola Sand isn't mentioned outside of the infobox. Neither is Pernille Gaardbo. So they need to either be discussed in more detail outside the infobox, with sources there, or we need sources for them placed in the infobox. Is there anything relevant to say about them, other than their roles as executive supervisors and producers? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Exec Supervisor is the same every year, until he or she steps down and a new supervisor is appointed by the EBU. It is only at times like that when the Exec Supervisor becomes noted within the main article body. So I suppose adding a citation for the supervisor in the box is more appropriate on this occasion. As for the Exec Producer, they are appointed each year by the host broadcaster (in this case DR). So more details about Pernille Gaardbo being appointed should ideally be within the main article and cited there. I'll quickly update that section, if that is OK with you ?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 08:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, and I've also added two images of venues that entered the bidding race, per your suggestion below. Picked those two, as they were the first to enter the race, plus one hosted Eurovision in 2001, whilst the other hosted the national selection event for 2013 (culminating towards Denmark's victory).  I felt those were more notable for the subject and allusive too.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 09:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Location

 * Is it worth including a picture of any other venues considered under the Bidding phase subsection?
 * That sounds like a really bad idea in my mind. The table would be very large and considering the article features many other long tables later on, I would say no. Currently there is a picture of the locations of all the candidate cities, which seems fine. Wesley Mouse agrees with me on this one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference #36 appears to be a dead link. This is an archive of it.
 * I can open the link fine on my computer. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the first one is a dead link, I tested it myself it directed to a 404 page. The second link is the working archive version.  I already added it to the article earlier today (see my comment below).   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've repaired the dead link. As for pictures of other venues, that is something that's never been raised before; although I do like the idea.  As for the capacities, as far as I'm aware they've been sourced from the respective venue articles.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Are all the capacities in the table sourced somewhere?
 * Yes, all tables are sourced, but I can understand your confusion as they are sometimes placed in different and somewhat random places, but all are sourced. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , refer to my comment above in which I had mentioned about the capacities within the tables.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Format

 * This sentence doesn't seem to fit in the context of the paragraph — it threw me for a minute, because one sentence we're establishing jurors and the next it's talking about viewing figures. The previous two years' articles don't seem to have any relevant statistics in the articles, so I'm not sure where it should be put. It could be made into a new paragraph: additionally, the reference used seems to contain other potentially useful statistics (up from 180 million last year, 61 million viewers at any given moment etc.)


 * It was a reported "record-breaker" for the EBU in terms to viewing figures, that's why viewing figures have never been mentioned before. It was discussed this on the article talk page (now archived), and we couldn't decide which section it should be included in, but did agree that such fact regarding record-breaking viewing was notable for inclusion.  Any suggestions which section it would suit best?   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just moved that into the broadcasting section, as it seems more appropriate to that, and is topical to the broadcasting theme.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand why viewing figures have never been mentioned before and am glad that they are included here. I think they're much better suited to the broadcasting section, so thank you for moving them there. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidents

 * The Reaction to Russia reference doesn't seem to back up cited facts regarding the final — in fact, the news article appears to have been written before the final took place. The latter citation should be replaced with something which does back up the stated facts about Russia's booing in the final. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The booing occurred both in the semifinal and grand final. The news article may be referring to the semifinal, hence its publication prior to the final.  Not sure if there are sources to verify the final, although there are YouTube videos uploaded on the official Eurovision channel that would be able to verify both.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * YouTube videos can be used as sources, but you'd definitely have to confirm it's the official Eurovision channel before referencing one of its videos. I'm certainly not doubting that the booing occurred in the final, but we need verifiability, not truth here. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, try here for a much better source about Russia-related booing during results. (Also, Milonov's "hotbed of sodomy" quote mentioned in the link might warrant a mention somewhere under Incidents: a quick Google search shows other newspaper articles have mentioned it too.) As for booing after their performance, you could try YouTube as a last resort if there are no news articles mentioning it. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That source from 'The Independent' is rather a good find. I've used that, and based on its content, have been able to expand details about the incident better, including the booing that occurred whenever Russia received votes.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Participating countries

 * Are Marvi Vallaste and Marilin Kongo really notable enough to deserve redlinks? Articles for both singers have been created and deleted before. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not notable that I know of. Perhaps delink, or doing the old sneaky Marvi Vallaste and Marilin Kongo ?   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Results

 * Where are the English translations sourced to?
 * The footnote for Latvia says it contains some Latvian phrases. I think the second and third footnotes make it clearer why the languages discussed are not important enough to be listed under the "Language" column ("there is one sentence", "the last line"). But for Latvia, I feel like "Latvian" could be listed along with English in the language column — could the footnote say,   or something similar?
 * "the suspense ended with the 34th vote" — is this not a bit biased? It would sound more neutral to me as,.

I'll try and review the rest of the article soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The project has a lot of multilingual members who are able to translate the song titles into English. Some I think also used Google Translator.
 * I think it is safe to ass Latvian in the language column, and thus remove its footnote.
 * I think whoever added the word "suspense" was getting a little overexcited themselves. I'll reword it now.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 19:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For the song translations, is this not original research? (Everything else has been addressed, although I made one small edit here.) Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It has never been classified as original research before, in the GA reviews for 2012 and 2013 articles, and also for the ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012 GA reviews. I'm sure the experienced GA reviewers at that time would have said if it were.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just checked WP:OR, and according to WP:TRANSCRIPTION, translating sourced material into English (in this case sourced foreign language songs into English), is not classified as original research.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the link to WP:TRANSCRIPTION. The English translations are fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So sorry guys, I got myself involved with some FA and GA-projects these last two days, so have not been active in the review. I will from now on. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, thankfully you got me on-hand, and I'm pretty use to GA reviews by now (4 under my belt, including ESC2012 & 2013). And I've been working on improving the 2012 and 2013 articles for FA review.  In fact, it looks like the Eurovision 2012 article could be on the verge of a promotion from GA to FA.  I wouldn't be too surprised if this review is drawing to a close.  Although I do need to check something with ; I've been improving articles from 2000 to 2013 by adding the official album information, and all that is left is to update this one.  If it is going to cause a problem with the review (the stability part) then I'll hold back.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 01:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you've updated the album information anyway. It's looking good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I went bold and added it. Its part of an idea I had to add the Soundtrack details, similar to how film articles do - and they achieve FA quite quickly. The idea started with adding the information to the ESC 2012 article, which is now under FA review, and seems to be close to achieving this. Although some advice given at that review has made me wonder more about this article. According to them, the lead should not have citations. And the incidents section should be repositioned so that it follows the "other countries" part. DO you think we should follow procedure on this article, especially whilst it is under GA review? Or leave it for now, and then do those alterations post-GA, so that the article may proceed for FA review at a later date?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed the moving of the Incidents section in the 2012 article; move it in this one if you want, but I think it's fine in either position. As for citations in the lead, I'd leave them there for now — there should be no problem with citations in the lead, but there's not always a need for them. The lead is usually the last part of the article I review, though, so I might change my mind when I've read it properly. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Scoreboard and Other countries: everything looks fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Other awards

 * I don't think reference #114 needs to be included in the "OGAE result" column.
 * For the Barbara Dex award, could we not have a sentence similar to the other two awards (e.g. ), and put the reference there instead of in every column?

I'll try and get through the rest of the review today. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

International broadcasts and voting; Official album; See also and External links: Good.

Lead
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * — is this really relevant enough to be put in the second sentence of the article? Surely Forest's win in the previous year shouldn't be mentioned before Wurst's win this year.
 * I think the last clause should be a separate sentence —  I also think nepotism is obscure enough a word to be linked to Wiktionary.
 * The first three sentences of the last paragraph seem like they contain far too much detail: it could be shortened to
 * I think the Incidents section deserves a bit of mention — maybe say  and/or.
 * Also, now that the article includes a section on the album, it might be worth adding a sentence about the album into the lead.
 * Is everything in the lead mentioned later in the article? (Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article) This sentence never seems to be expanded upon:  Neither is the budgeting concerns:   is never used again, although the original budget of 40 million kroner is mentioned under Location. "Nepotism" and ref #11 aren't used outside the lead, either.
 * Referencing: I think many of the refs in the lead could be removed, while other might be best staying, or can at least stay for the time being. I would remove:
 * 1) Ref #1 (sentence is summary of sourced statements in Location)
 * 2) Ref #2 (used in infobox)
 * 3) Refs #12 to #17 (all used later; last 4 especially don't look very good aesthetically)


 * I'll attempt to respond to each point separately.
 * Yes it is relevant. Emmelie's win is what brought the contest to Denmark in the first place.  The rules of the contest is that the winning country goes on to hosting the following year's event.  However, there have been some occasions were the winning country has rejected to host the following year due to financial costs.  This method of noting how the contest has come to the host city, is something that has been done on all articles, and has not been an issue before, as noted in the 2012 GA and 2013 GA reviews.
 * Whereabouts would you suggest the sentence be moved to? Linking to nepotism would be wise too.
 * I'll work on shortening those.
 * I agree, some brief mention of the key incidents, such as jokes on Wurst, and Russia's booing, would be good for the lead.
 * And I also agree that now there is an album section, that this too should be mentioned.
 * The issue of users adding content directly into the lead section, without paying attention to what the lead should be used for, has been a long-term problem for Project Eurovision, and something that needs to be addressed with urgency. If something appears in the lead, that is not mentioned in the main article body, then I'm inclined to say remove it, or expand on it further within the main body.
 * I'll "clean-up" those refs.
 *  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've worked on some of the matters mentioned above, and reshuffled the lead around slightly, to give coherent flow, and based on some comments/suggestions at the previously mentioned FA review.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments.
 * 1) Okay.
 * 2) I'd just leave it after the "three times more than expected". I just think it's a bit of a long sentence and the "were furthermore" feels a bit grammatically dodgy. Even just the word "they" before "were furthermore" would help.
 * 3) Thanks.
 * 4) Looks good.
 * 5) Done.
 * 6) I'm inclined to prefer expansion rather than removal of content that looks quite good, but it can still pass for GA without being comprehensive, so you don't *have* to expand upon everything. I'd say it's broad enough now.
 * Okay: it looks much better now.

Everything's been addressed, and I think the article definitely meets all six GA criteria. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope I can still bring a doubt I expressed in the general talk page. It was announced yesterday that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of the 2014 Ondas Award in the International TV production category.Premios Ondas Official Site, Eurovision.tv, DR.dk, Esctoday.com. These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are very well-known in Spain and the ceremony is nationally televised. I'd like to include a small mention in the article, but I don't know where information about this award, or other possible accolades for the contest as a production, should go. The Eurovision Song Contest 2011 broadcast won a Rose D'or award for Best Live Event; in the article it is mentioned in the lead only. Xelaxa (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , so sorry for this, but the GA review has now closed. On the positive side, it does mean we can now discuss the matter back at the article talk page, but we will have to air on caution as to not cause too much disruption to this newly promoted article.  It would be devastating if it were to be demoted so soon after promotion, all because of post-GA alterations.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)