Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs) 05:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Opening remarks

Personally, I think that Cezar should have won for obvious reasons and that "Glorious" feels more like a riff of "Don't You Worry Child", but anyway...

Review

1. Well-written? Y the quality of the prose is good
2. Factually accurate?: N Pas de points; Unfortunately, some of the citations use blogs (I do consider ESCToday reliable and not a blog because of their history, but this "Eurovision Times" looks like a self-published blog) as sources (which is questionable), the paragraph on the Azerbaijan cheating scandal uses YouTube as a source for the claim "it was reported in Lithuanian media that an undercover video recording published on YouTube" (yet there are other proper sources in the same paragraph), while the "Jury in the Netherlands" and pre-mature reveal feel too trivial for inclusion (plus, again, the former appears to be sourced to a blog with "blog" in its domain name). Additionally, the statement about "Glorious" being cleared of plagiarism charges is uncited.
3. Broad in coverage? Y Sufficient for GA status, although those aforementioned trivial controversies should be removed entirely.
4. Neutral?: Y No neutrality problems to report
5. Stable?: Y There has been no recent edit warring of concern.
6. Images: Y All of your images are relevant and correctly tagged.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

With that, I am placing this article on hold; it's almost ready for GA status, you just need to fix the problems described above. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank ViperSnake151 for taking the time to review this article for GA classification and for providing advice on areas that required tidying up. I have carried out work on these areas as follows:

• A source from Eurovision.tv entitled "Eurovision organisers respond to media reports on voting" which was used elsewhere within the article, mentions about the YouTube link. I have therefore used this to also back-up the same YouTube link that is being cited on the article.
• In regards to the short sentence that used EurovisionTimes as a citation. As there are no other sources available that may have been a sufficient replacement, I have decided to remove this part.
• I have also removed the entire part regarding the "Jury in Netherlands". As the sources were from blogs (and I do not know how they slipped through the net), I have been bold in removing this part entirely.
• I've also added a citation to verify the cleared plagiarism claims regarding Cascada's 'Glorious'. Although the original sentence referenced a date and the source I found does not mention a date - thus I have chosen to follow suit and refrain from using dates.

If there are any other areas that you feel need attention before GA can be passed, then feel free to contact me in due course. Again, thank you for taking the time to carry out this review. Wesley Mᴥuse 13:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just think that the YouTube link itself is a primary source; you don't need it when you have secondary sources already discussing the video. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed it. Wesley Mᴥuse 01:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)