Template:Did you know nominations/Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

 * ... that the Eurovision Song Contest has played host to conflicts stemming from the Nagorno-Karabakh War?
 * * ALT1: ... that during the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest, Azerbaijani officials objected to the use of a monument (pictured) in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to represent Armenia?
 * * ALT2:... that Baku's Ministry of National Security interrogated Azeri citizens who voted for Armenia's song at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest for being "potential security threats"?
 * Reviewed: Luc De Vos

Improved to Good Article status by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 05:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Everything looks good to go with the article. I am tempted to approve ALT1, but perhaps a picture of the monument can be helpful. So I propose something like this:

ALT3: ... that during the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest, Azerbaijani officials objected to the use of a monument (pictured) in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to represent Armenia?


 * The picture is really nice and readers will see the monument right off the bat. I think it'll make them more curious. Let me know what you think. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I had some freedom of panorama concerns over it, but I'm was not sure which law would apply given that Armenia has FOP for buildings/art, and Azerbaijan doesn't. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Great! Now this looks really catchy! The article is 1,500+ characters. It has been passed as a GA on December 2 and the DYK nomination happened to same day, so we're good to go with that as well. The hook is cited reliably. The photograph is in the public domain. We're good to go! Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Please note that GA nominations cannot be passed as is, but must be checked against the DYK criteria as well, especially regarding sourcing and close paraphrasing. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at  DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the article once more, I found that there aren't any close paraphrasing issues. I did fix some sourcing issues though. At any rate, the article is 1,500+ characters. It has been passed as a GA on December 2 and the DYK nomination happened to same day, so we're good to go with that as well. The hook is cited reliably. The photograph is in the public domain. We're good to go! Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Unfortunately, since a new hook was introduced, an independent reviewer is required to check ALT3. Fuebaey (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the strikethrough confused me. Just realised ALT3 is the same as ALT1. Fuebaey (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)