Wikipedia:Peer review/Melodifestivalen

Melodifestivalen

 * Previous peer review

Current GA. Article failed at FAC a few weeks ago. I think images, referencing and completeness are pretty good, it's really everything else I'm worried about ;) Having said that, comments on anything are more than welcome. Thanks.  Chwe ch  19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Aqwis 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006 .[?]
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== . [?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style. [?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * correctly
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). [?]
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * Some stuff dealt with, others not applicable (there isn't an infobox that will work here). I haven't found correctly and don't in the article but when I do, I'll see what can be done.  Chwe ch  15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, "correctly" was not a weasel term and "don't" was used as part of an unseen note to editors.  Chwe ch  17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)