Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Eurosong, User talk:Jess Cully, User talk:AxG, ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

FA from 2006, referencing/1c issues throughout. Lots of unsourced info, wholly unreferenced paragraphs and subsections, in addition to multiple violations of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Since the article was featured, it has been subject to a lot of unreferenced - and sometimes P.O.V - additions. I have been meaning to go through it and clean it up, but haven't yet got around to it. Thanks for the nudge: I shall do this in the coming week or so. Of course, Jess and AxG are welcome to share the task! :) EuroSong talk 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, keep us posted. :) Cirt (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring this up this weekend at WT:EURO, you have only just beat me to it. I agree that the article does not meet FA at present and needs a complete review. I will bring up the topic of reliable sourcing again however after an article was quick failed GA for containing ESCToday and Okiotimes sources, something that effects this page as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something strange going on with the esctoday and oiko refs. It isn't clear if they should or should not be used and there hasn't been enough input in the discussions started. Esctoday IMO is a lot more reliable than oiko, but i think we should avoid using them if possible for this page in the meantime unless there is a concrete consensus. (Hint for someone to establish one) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of references, POV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per above. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't what needs to be fixed try to be addressed first instead of delisting? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have done lots of work on the article since the FAR was initiated: I just have not had time to clean up a couple more things and then write a comment here about it! EuroSong talk 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist: References are in a mixture of styles - not consistent. Some do not support stated facts. The prose style is not good enough for current FA standard.  Many of the cites do not meet the higher FA standards, certainly not blogs, or fan sites.
 * Ref #3 (http://english.aljazeera.net/} does not support number of viewers, it just redirects to the frontpage of Al Jazeera.
 * Ref #30 redirects here {http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/208/655}
 * Ref #28 {http://www.doteurovision.com/1993/green.htm} returns 404
 * Ref #23 cites a Swedish ESC fan site, surely the official Swedish viewing figures should be sought out?
 * Ref #27 is to a private tourist accomodation booking aggregator, not a RS
 * Ref #29 cites various sources - why not get the information from Finnish Tv or the Finnish press?
 * Ref #57 cites Bubblegum University which describes itself as  a kinderpop think tank.
 * Ref #53 cites the EBu so the information should be found there.
 * Ref #48 cites Des and Mick online!!
 * Ref #45 ESCToday no sources cited.
 * Ref #36 ESCToday cites ERT, which may be the official broadcaster. Surely that source shouldbe used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [forgot to sign before - sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]
 * Note. ESCToday is a full service news website which gathers its own information in addition to sourcing it from other articles. If ERT and the EBU are the sources, then they had contact with them, there is no article that they are reproducing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, well that is just an opinion. Other reliable sources describe ESCToday as a fan site, not a full service news website. What matters here are the criteria at WP:FAC, specifically 1c; Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: FARC is too hasty, and the process is unfair: points have been made in this section which were not made in the original FAR, thus giving editors no opportunity to address them. Needs more time. EuroSong talk 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nothing unfair about it. Standards and criteria change, both for FA and GA. Further and wider reviews of articles often bring out stuff missed in older reviews. All reviews may be fallible, FA are higher standards and involve more editors. If delisting is done, articles can be brought back to FAC. No one dies. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do work it will still be here. People can insert new queries at any time as the nominator may miss things. Time will be given for anything so it's not as though people can succeed by making a quick ambush criticism late in teh piece  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on there!

I think that the FARC process was started too soon. Since the FAR was initiated, I have made some dramatic improvements to the article. There were just a few more things for me to review before posting a lengthy reply here, but unfortunately I have been busy in my offline life recently and have not had time to do so yet. Now I notice that, since the original review proposal, a FARC section has been added, listing a whole lot more things wrong with the references. This is unfair, because these points were not brought up specifically in the original FAR, and more time needs to be given for them to be addressed. In addition, with regards to the reliability of sources from ESCtoday, no firm decision has been yet made on that, and it would be improper to de-list this article on that basis. Now hold on a while, and I will find time to address everything - and to give a more full reply here. EuroSong talk 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't get closed while steady work is ongoing  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * YM asked me to comment on the sources here.
 * EBU.com or European Broadcasting Union? Pick one and be consistent.
 * Current ref 15 is just a bare url.
 * This sentence "However, the Song Contest has by far the highest profile of these programmes, and has long since become synonymous with the name "Eurovision"." is referenced with a google search and the search does not support the information given.
 * http://www.esctoday.com/?section=home is not a reliable source. I've read the discussion at the RfC and still have yet to see anything that shows its reliable.
 * What makes http://www.cork-guide.ie/millstreet/town.html a reliable source?
 * http://www.doteurovision.com/1993/green.htm deadlinks
 * The Eurovision Song Contest book needs page numbers for the refs.
 * Current ref 41 is lacking publisher and last access date.
 * What makes http://www.desandmick.co.uk/otherbits/eurovision/ a reliable source?
 * Current ref 49 is just a bare url.
 * http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php is not a reliable source. I've read the RfC and have yet to see anything that shows it meets WP:RS.
 * Current ref 63 is lacking a publisher and last access date.
 * What makes http://www.bubblegum-music.com/ a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per source concerns, listed above. I'm open to being dissuaded that ESCtoday and the like are reliable at the RfC, but as of this point I don't believe they meet our standards for high-quality sources. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get why people are voting. Improvements are being made and the votes will shortly become outdated. Observations such as those of Ealdgyth should be made in order to improve the article. We are not discussing its suitability as an FA "as is". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this is the voting stage, and we do judge the FA as is. If improvements are made, we will amend our recommendations accordingly. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed - please improve the article. At the moment the referencing is a serious issue, as per concerns stated above and the fact that little is being done to address these concerns first mentioned on 17 June 2009. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a general note that acceptance of a source at RFC does not necessarily mean it will get the same approval at FAC/FAR. eg, at WP:SLR, Tamil editors are in the majority (including contributors to Tamil Tiger websites), so they decided that Tamil Tiger websites are RS simply by weight of ethnic numbers, but when they got to FAC they got told off because Tamil Tiger supporters do not have a majority.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC is not for this FAC/FAR, it is just a coincidence that is happening at the same time. It is for all articles for the project and for a draft project guideline for which sources to use. This is exactly what other projects have done, see WikiProject Video games/Sources. Project members come from many different countries and have many different views, and this is not a religious, political, or ethnic dispute, so I do not see any analogy to the Sri Lanka disputes. If this about the straw poll, like any, it will not dictate the results of the RfC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the start of July, the only substantive changes have been Grk formatting some cites. Is anyone still planning to work on this?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it, but I'm still tracking down sources to determine what can be done. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the problem is that many of the Wikiproject Eurovision editors are wedded to the belief that ESCToday and other fan sites are WP:RS despite all indications to the contrary. I have had it expressed to me that it would be hard to find many sources related to a 2000/2001 article compared to one for 2008/2009. In many occasions websites delete articles/information after a year or two, and so it can be difficult to source information from those years. There are only two or three editors working consistently on these articles and they don't seem to be able to find other reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few published histories on the event, along with some academic works and a book collating a number of chapters by different academics/researchers. I'm not convinced that everything can be sourced better, yet, so I'm not inclined to make any bold claims, but I'm going to do some more digging over the next week or so to see what is around. Maybe there's enough. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I have a little bit of time, I'm going to start work on the article. I guess Jezhotwells' list of criticisms of references as above is as good a place to start as any. Some of the reference numbers have changed since that list was posted, but for ease of reference I shall keep the same numbers so we know what I'm referring to. I will list work done here as I go - for my own reference as much as for anyone else's.
 * Ongoing work
 * Ref #3 (at the time of Jezhotwells' review). It now links [here http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2006/05/2008410141723346664.html], which is an article which corroborates one of the Eurovision viewing figures as mentioned in the article. No further work necessary.
 * Ref #30 (at the time of Jezhotwells' review) Thank you for pointing this out. How odd that that website used the same story ID for a different page. I have retrieved the correct article from archive.org. Work completed.
 * Ref #28 - has now been corrected. Work completed.
 * Ref #23 - Changed ref from ESCtoday to official eurovision.tv site, which states Melodifestivalen as the top-rated show on Swedish TV. Work completed.
 * It was a swedish fan site when I looked. ESCToday is not RS.  No-one has brought any evidence to the debate that it is.  WP:Burden applies. See Ealdgyth's comment above. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Correction they were citing a Swedish fan site, so their source is unrealiable as well.  I found an artcile at Nexis, which suggests that the Swedish Tv ratings company Mediamatningar i Skandinavien got it seriously wrong by not counting people who watched outside of their own home. I have cut and pasted the article into my sandbox as unless you have access to Nexis, you probably won't find it. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref #27 - I thought the Irish tourist site was fine - but I found a better reference from the Irish government about the population of Millstreet. Thank you for prompting me to do so. Work completed.
 * Ref #29 - Replaced ESCtoday source with article from the EBU regarding the things that need to be considered when choosing a venue. Work completed.
 * Ref #57 - Replaced "Bubblegum University" source with one from Reuters. Work completed.
 * Ref #53 - Found original EBU source to replace ESCtoday. Much better now. Work completed.
 * Ref #48 - Replaced "Des & Mick Online" with EBU site which explains about the 1996 preselection, and the financial issue regarding Germany. Work completed.
 * Ref #45 - Found EBU source from official eurovision.tv site to replace ESCtoday. Work completed.
 * Ref #36 - Found EBU source from official eurovision.tv site to replace ESCtoday. Work completed.

Now to address Ealdgyth's concerns (written above on 10th July - not with bullets):
 * There are no mentions of "EBU.com". However, one mention of "European Broadcasting Union" in the text has now been changed to "EBU", as the abbreviation is addressed at the beginning of the article. It is now consistent. Work completed.
 * "Bare URL" reference - was removed earlier...
 * But you're right, this fact should still have a ref - Done. Ref added from EBU site. Work completed.
 * "http://www.esctoday.com/?section=home" is not presently in the article. No (more?) work necessary.
 * "http://www.cork-guide.ie/millstreet/town.html" has already been replaced with a RS as above. No more work necessary
 * "http://www.doteurovision.com/1993/green.htm" was replaced by official EBU information page. No more work necessary
 * Re: page numbers for ESC book. I lent my copy to a friend, so don't have the page numbers at this time. Can someone else who has the book please help? I will try to get my copy back. In the meantime... Work pending.
 * "Current ref 41 is lacking publisher and last access date" - Information added. Work completed.
 * "desandmick" - already addresses as above. No more work necessary
 * Ref #49, blank URL: I have removed completely the information about Italy in the possible Big 5, because of the RS issue with Oikotimes. I have been unable to find and other source for it which was not written on a fan site. If it is later decided that Oikotimes is RS, then it can return. Until then... Work completed.
 * Ref #63 - Access date has already been added. The publisher is "Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation" (JASSS) - same name as the "Journal" name, which has already been mentioned. No (more) work necessary.
 * "bubblegum-music.com" has already been addressed and replaced, as above.

''Work completed from Jezhotwells' bulleted list. Work completed from Ealdgyth's unbulleted list, with the exception of the page numbers. Pending: Someone to add page numbers to ESC companion book ref; go through whole article with fine-tooth comb to clean up anything else.'' EuroSong talk 10:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A section heading "Other" is just begging for a "Trivia" tag; try to re-organise the section into prose or disperse the content to other appropriate sections. The short paragraphs in the "Parties and Euroclub" section should be merged. DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold. The prose isn't bad, but I've just added a load of fact tags that I'd like to see addressed. I've never seen Eurovision, so I placed them at places I think need explanation. Some of them can be fixed by duplication of existing citations, while others might be covered by one or two citations applied in multiple places. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: references #34, #35, #36, #37, #38 say what happened in Belgrade and Moscow - they do not support the general assertions about the Mayor's reception, night club, press, parties, etc. Reference #39 reports on teh voting system in 1975 - nothing about that still being in use. Reference #42 dows not support the statement "Since 2006, a separate draw has been held....", it just reports what happened in 2006. Reading over the artcile the prose is very poor in parts, not even up to good article standards.  I recommend a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The RfC has concluded. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When I have time I will continue to address the issues, but I am very busy at the moment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Question will any work be forthcoming in the next 2-3 weeks at all?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - and I intend to comment on some of the things said on this page as well. I have the day off tomorrow, so hope to have some time to edit then. EuroSong talk 11:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am on holiday at the moment and I cannot do anything substantial on a laptop both as it is not as easy to use as my computer at home and as others also wish to use. This will remain the case until the 9 August. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there should be things in there about political songs. The Georgian 2009 one that got banned, the Israel one about Iran's nukes, and the 2005 Ukraine one.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist The article is filled with citation needed tags. No one seems to be actively working on the article. It has been at FAR almost two months. &mdash; mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As I posted above a month ago this article is not at featured article standard. No-one seems in a hurry to sort it out. It is not the end of the world if it is delisted - it just loses a gold star, no one is going to die.  Currently I am more worried about people seeing that gold star and saying So that's what Wikipedia thinks is worthy of being a featured article. Delist and bring it back to WP:FAC when it is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist - It is probably going to be a while until this is back up to featured status. I would suggest delisting for the time being, working on it, taking it through GA, and then think about FA after that. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.