Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from nominator
Thanks. Looking forward to this. Although there were two other Eurovision articles on GA nomination that are also in the outstanding backlog (over 5 months old).  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming everything is OK and that the review is still in progress?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  00:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just pretty busy over the weekend. I'll try to review as many articles today and tomorrow as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the swift reply. I appreciate and understand how busy real-life schedules can be, as I myself, am in a busy period trying to move house. So feel free to take as much time as you require.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  09:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): 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:

This is a very thorough article on the 2015 ESC, but still a number of things need to be sorted out. I have added a number of maintanance tags that need to be taken care of. The rest is listed here:
 * Lead: A tense voting process does not sound very NPOV to me, you should try and find a different wording here.
 * Location: In general, the first paragraph should be moved to the end of the section, since there it does not resolve the bidding process to the fact that Vienna won.
 * Bidding city table: I do not really see what sources the notes come from...
 * Inclusive traffic lights: You need to introduce the fact that the Song Contest is also just called "Eurovision" for short or give the full name.
 * Graphic design: You need to decide wether to give the motto in italics or not, both versions are present here.
 * Presenters: The fact they all speak French needs a source.
 * Presenters: Maybe you can give a short overview over who those persons are?
 * ESC needs to be introduced as a abbreviation as well.
 * I would recommend to move the result tables out of the "Participants" section and into a new "Results" section. The scoreboard can then be a sub-section of that.
 * Result tables: The places and points don't have sources.
 * Same goes for the jury results in the semi-finals.
 * Marcel Bezençon Awards: How was decided who gets these awards?
 * Official album: Track listing, running time, label and genre all need a source.
 * There seems to be a problem with ref #4 to Volksblatt, the connection times out. Maybe that is just because of server problems on their end, but you should have a look at that.
 * Images: There are several good photos on Commons for the event, you should use at least two of them in the article. One of the winner definitely!

That's about it. Good job so far! Seven days to take care of the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A couple of points you raised above cannot be addressed, per suggestions from the past GA reviews for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 articles which are also of GA status. For example, you say the fact that the Song Contest is also just called "Eurovision" for short or give the full name and ESC needs to be introduced as a abbreviation as well. All worded styles are WP:COMMONNAME. Also you say to move the result tables out of the "Participants" section and into a new "Results" section. Again we were advised not to do this on the last 3 years of contest articles, and a RfC was held to house the results and participation details all under the same section as it currently shows. The citations for the notes of the bidding city table are at the top of the table itself (8, 9, 10, 13). As for the the places and points not having sources, they are there as citation #45. The 12 points tables fall under WP:CALC Citations for the split results are within the tables themselves (50–59). Marcel Bezençon Awards: How was decided who gets these awards? a bit self-explanatory really, and is cited with ref #102. Track listing does not advise on citing the running time in the listing themselves, which is why citation #172 in the prose above it is there as a precaution for verifying the running time of the album - this is again something that was advised and passed at the previous 4 GA reviews for, , and JESC . Ref #4 to Volksblatt worked OK for me and didn't timeout. As for the other issues I shall address them as soon as possible.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  06:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And seven days to address these issues is pushing it, don't you think? Especially when I've been made to wait 11 days for the review to begin, and I did state at the top that I am currently in the process of moving house this week (Friday 25 September to be exact) so there are a lot to sort out in real life which is going to cause this to delay slightly. I'd appreciate a little extra time if possible.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  06:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seven days is simply the standard period. If you need more time, feel free to do so! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw some work was done since we last wrote here. I was unsure if that is all that is going to be done? A few replies to the points you raised:
 * I still fail to find the points written in the "Notes" section of the bidding table in the four sources you mention. Also, those inline citations should go directly behind the information.
 * Marcel Bezençon Awards: If the information is in the source, you can write it in the article. It is Wikipedia's policy that readers should not be forced to click further to find information.
 * As for the album, Template:Infobox album states that "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment".
 * The Volksblatt source still fails to load for me. I don't know what's wrong there...

I'll be on a wikibreak due to being out of the country for the next couple of days and check back next Monday. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No edits made by the nominator since my last comments. Other edits have been made that are not sourced. I am therefore forced to fail this review now. Feel free to nominate again when the issues are adressed. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very harsh and unfair. I had informed you a while back that I was in the process of moving house, and that I would have no internet access for a while. I insist that you reconsider your failing on the basis that you were very aware that I had no internet and thus impossible to even know you had left me notes let alone act upon them.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  09:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear, all you told me was that you'd be moving on 9/25, so I did not know that you would be without internet for 20 days after that. As I said, feel free to nominate the article again, another review shouldn't take long, the article is almost there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense, should have made it perfectly clear that if someone is moving home that their internet services would also be disconnected from the former address and would take a while to be reconnected at the new address. I am inclined to go down the second opinion route, as another editor would most likely agree that additional time should have been allocated due to the circumstances.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  12:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)