Talk:Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original review

Comments

No real necessity to artificially bold Netherlands here.
Certainly no need for the bold link to the 2014 competition either.
"Ilse DeLange and Waylon,..." no need to repeat Ilse's first name as there's no confusion over who she is.
Avoid linking common geographical terms, such as Denmark.
Probably worth noting that the Netherlands were required to qualify before saying they were likely to qualify. Not all countries need to qualify...
Not too bothered, but debut has been anglicised enough these days to not need an accent. Particularly as you use both variants in the same article.
"the 2014 Contest," vs "up to the contest" not sure about the capitalisation strategy.
" in 1957 " avoid these easter egg links. I had problems with my boat race articles with this, but ended up saying things like "in the 1997 race" rather than just "in 1997..."
Again "for the 2004 contest" vs "recently in the 2011 Contest" - caps or no caps?
"The Dutch broadcaster for the 2014 Contest, who broadcasts the event in the Netherlands " somewhat tautalogical here, needs rewording to remove the redundancy.
"The Netherlands has used various methods to select the Dutch entry" would be better as something like "Various methods have been used to select the Dutch entry..."
Lots of repeats of "method" towards the end of the paragraph, isn't great prose.
"This method would again be used by AVROTROS in 2014." ref please.
I know MOS adherence is not obligatory, but "The Common Linnets - Ilse DeLange and Waylon" should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
"given that AVROTROS" minor, picky, but I would prefer "as long as..."
"TROS announced" is that the same as AVROTROS?
"Armin van Buuren, who had" again, no need to repeat first name.
I would avoid linking common terms like "music video" too.
Not sure in the purpose of abbreviating EBU when you never use the abbreviation.
"shows' producers" shouldn't that be "show's producers"?
Some concern over the singular/plural reference to the Netherlands, e.g. you have "the Netherlands had participated in the Eurovision Song Contest fifty-four times since their début" i.e. plural yet "The Netherlands was set" i.e. singular. Be consistent.
"was used to effect" not sure what "to effect" adds here.
"into 3 categories:" three.
" Ilse DeLange, JB Meijers, Rob..." again, don't repeat first names unless there's some possible ambiguity.
The list of jury members starts as prose but then becomes factoid, bullet points, revise so it reads as prose.
I'm never sure but I don't think the use of flag icons is appropriate as they are being used purely decoratively here.
Table captions, "Points Awarded" no need to capitalise Awarded.
Same for "Voting Results".
Avoid single-sentence paragraphs (e.g. the first "para" of the "After Eurovision" section).
"a huge hit " not encyclopedic really, not neturally toned.
"at #9" number 9
"He later resurfaced " doesn't read encyclopedically to me either.
"The group line-up for the tour would include Ilse DeLange as well as JB Meijers..." first names...
Both See also are already linked so don't need to be restated here.
Per my hyphen/en-dash comment above, reference titles also should be checked for this, e.g. ref 7, ref 60 needs a spaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles (e.g. ref 16, 17...)
De Telegraaf is a work so should be italicised.
As is The Daily Telegraph. And Metro. Check for others.

This is in a really good state, I'll place on hold for seven days to see if we can address some of the nit-picky concerns I've raise above which would just polish the article off. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at a few of the points for now and would like to comment on those, if I may. The bold text for country and the contest they took part in has been a method used for years now. And something which was never raised an issue with during the recent GA review of Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 (now GA article). Also linking to "common geographical terms, such as Denmark", was never found fault with in that aforementioned GA. WikiProject Eurovision went in favour of using the accent spelling of début, rather than the non-accent variety; debut; and have tried to keep consistency throughout. I suppose changing the ones without an accent into the consistent version would be the right thing to do here. I'll address the other points when I have read through them. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVRO and TROS were independent broadcasters, until they merged in 2014 to become AVROTROS. Hope that clears up the confusion there. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response, I review in isolation, in other words it's not really important to me what other reviewers have said in other reviews. I'm more used to working on featured articles and lists, and therefore may tend to have marginally higher standards than those of oher GAN reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, I appreciate that you tend to work more on featured articles and lists, so therefore aim for higher standards. However, this is not a FA review, the the standards for a GA do not have to be as high as those for FA. Anyhow, I have addressed the points above, and just need to clean-up the en-dash issues in the refs (and I found more than the ones you noted) and also I need to italicised the works in the refs too. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have gone through all of the references and italicised works noted. In carrying out this operation, I had stumbled across a plethora of citations that had parameters missing, so I've fixed those and again italicised the works. The 'see also' section has been changed so that it links to the Netherlands Junior Eurovision participation of the same year. I have also de-linked any overlinking of words/phrases. Plus I've changed how some links have been written for contests, so that they use the WP:ESC templates such as {{Esccnty}} and {{Escyr}}. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through your points and made several necessary changes to wording, referencing and format. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2

I'm really not buying this artificial version of bolding in the lead, especially when part of it is linked. What I would say is that higher quality articles don't do this, but I can't complain vs the GA criteria. It's just worth noting that you're perpetuating an erroneous approach to the lead of articles in this way.
"the 1962 and 1963 contests." contests should be part of the wikilink (etc).
Missed this first time round, but " let all entries shine." is not encyclopedic.
Be consistent, you now link "the" in "at the 1993 contest"... fix this linking unilaterally.
Missed this too, you say "In July 2014..." for the post-Eurovision section, claiming they'd be going on a tour. Well it's July 2015 now, so what's the update?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: if you are not buying the "bolding" in the lead, then perhaps you need to challenge MOS:BOLDTITLE which encourages and recommends it be done. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically bold links, which are not recommended. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Well I'm not buying into the way you are reviewing this, in all honesty. You have said you normally do FA's, and you are treating this GA review as if it were for a FA. The criteria is by far different. The other points you listed are also over-the-top for the circumstance of a GA. For example; It is impossible to link to both the 1962 and 1963 contents using one link. They are, after all, two individual contests. You never explained which part of the article mentions "let all entries shine". Saying it needs to be changed without informing of its whereabouts is not helpful. We are not mind-readers. Also, how have we "claimed" they went on tour, when there is a citation that verifies they went on tour and provides the dates and locations? What more can we follow up with after that? There are no sources that mention what happened during the tour, and we can't just "fabricate" content, as that goes against WP:OR. In light of the conduct this review is being made, and the fact you have said you tend to do FA's rather than GA's; I would like to request a second reviewer to have a look at this. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I'm disappointed that you feel that way. I plucked this from the queue, it's been hanging around for months, and I had hoped that my review comments would be accepted with a little more grace. If you prefer me to fail this nomination so you can renominate, that's fine. I have made well over 100 GA reviews in the last year or so, this is only the second time I can recall that I have had complaints for a review being too detailed. In the meantime, let me just expand on the second set of comments to remove the confusion that appears to have arisen.

See WP:LEADLINK where "If, as is typical, the lead contains a boldface reiteration of the title, the reiteration should not contain links".
I didn't suggest you link the two contests to one article. I said you should use something along the lines of "the 1962 and 1963 races".
A simple control-F (or cmd-F) would help you find the text that I have said is not encyclopedic. It appears to have been removed, so that's good.
I wasn't asking you to fabricate anything, nor introduce original research. I simply asked what happened to the tour. It now appears that further text has been added to cater for my enquiry, which is good.

Let me know how you wish to proceed, we have only a couple of minor outstanding issues, and from my point of view, it would be a shame to see the nomination fail because of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: it is I who is disappointed that you are conducting a FA-style review on a GA nominated article. That is not what you're suppose to be doing per the reviewing instructions. I have seen more than 200 reviews been conducted, and this is the first time I have ever seen one being done using the FA criteria. And no, you would not need to fail so that it can be renominated. You clearly are not familiar with GA reviewing, as a user can ask for a second opinion at any time, and if the review is active, must not be failed, in order for a second review to commence.

As for this bolding thing, it is clear that it is your personal annoyance. One needs to remember that the review needs to be neutral and following the GAN criteria. It must not be based on personal preference and styles. There are a plethora of manual of style guides that all encourage the bolding in this manner, including MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. The title of n article has to be given bold text within the first line of the opening text. Now this article is about Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. To use that entire wording in a sentence would not work as it makes no grammatical sense. However, the way it has been done "The Netherlands participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014" is covering both the Netherlands and the Eurovision 2014 aspects of the article title, all being bold, and all within the first opening line. However, I have delinked for now, to see if that is in accordance with your "personal choice of style".

Not at all, thank you for helping get the article to closer compliance with the MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we link to "boat races" for 1962 and 1963? This is the Eurovision SONG Contest, not the Eurovision Boat Race. We cannot call these events a "race" as they are "competing" in a "song contest". Athletes' race, not musicians, so these events are contests.

It was an example. I think that was obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should also assume that not everyone is familiar with conducting a "simple control-F (or cmd-F)", in order to find text. Being more elaborate and helpful is what is expected of a reviewer when carrying out GA's.

Anyhow, I shall be leaving a note over at WT:GAN for further eyes to be cast on this, as you are clearly conducting a FA review on a GA nominee. And it casts doubts on how many other GA's have you carried out this procedure with in gthe past. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you are entitled to do just as you like. I am not using FA criteria by any means as this article falls way short of that standard. You are probably unaware how many have GANs I have eventually failed as a result of these reviewers, most nominators get on board and are happy to improve Wikipedia. As I said, this only the second time someone has complained, and the first time round the nominator later apologised. If you're concerned that I'm helping make the quality of the articles too high, I am surprised, to say the least. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: now you've confused matters even further. At first the text within the article about 1962/1963 was linked as "the [1962] and [1963 contest]s". You then said to change it, which we did. Now you want us to change it back? Make your mind up. As for the WP:LEADLINK thing, someone nerds to have that noted in the MOS guides of MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. Would be more helpful if it were noted in there, not just for myself, but other editors who may not be aware of the issue. Anyhow, I am guessing the rest is now of high enough standard? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm withdrawing from this review. I am sorry that I wasted your time. I'm sure you'll easily find someone else to quickly pass it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I'd be happy to review this. The article looks quite good, except for a few minor things that I would do myself except that I think it'd be better if the nominator had a say, too. Jacedc (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

§ Background

and finally in the 1975 contest with "Ding-a-Dong" performed by the group Teach-In. Not sure "finally" is entirely necessary.
the Netherlands had featured in only two finals. Had been featured in only two finals? To feature something is to host something, to be featured in something is to be hosted by something. You see what I'm trying to say?
The Netherlands least successful result has been last place "The Netherlands" needs a possessive apostrophe (The Netherlands' least successful has been last place)

§ Promotion

A small European promotional tour had been planned for The Common Linnets I'm pretty sure "was" is more appropriate instead of "had been". "Had been" implies something that was and still is, whereas "was" implies something that used to be but is no longer.

§ Semi-final

... Waylon using a specially designed microphone stand to allow ... I believe a hyphen needs to go between "specially" and "designed".
DeLange performed the song in a white dress, while Waylon was dressed in black leather trousers, a black jacket and a cowboy hat. I'm not entirely sure this sentence is really necessary, nor the following sentence about the backgrounds, though I could be wrong.

§ Final

and at the end of the voting had finished in second place behind the winning entry from Austria this sentence confused me for a second there, I would suggest rearranging it to and had finished in second place at the end of the voting behind the winning entry from Austria or something similar to that.

Other than that, looks good! :) I'll just touch on the intro bolding issue. On one hand, I'd say that it's probably better to be consistent with the other Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest articles, especially since policies and guidelines always have exceptions. But then that leaves us to think about whether or not it really makes sense. In my opinion, almost all other articles that I've seen as GAs and FAs that have links in their title reiteration are not bolded, so I'm beginning to question whether or not it'd be better to be consistent across articles of the same type or articles across all of Wikipedia. My final verdict is indifferent, with a slight leaning towards going ahead and bolding it since it looks silly to not bold it just because of a little link. I'll leave that to the discretion of the nominator. Jacedc (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacedc: I've gone through your list and made the necessary corrections for most of the points. I think the paragraph around the performance in the semi-final is quite important, because how the acts stage their performances is an important part of the contest, and I think it's necessary to convey this to the reader as well. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: I see. Do you think it'd be a good idea to kind of elaborate on that sentence, then? Maybe add more context or information explaining why such details are important to have in the article? Because as a casual reader that sentence on its own struck me as an inconsequential detail. What effect did that particular choice in clothing have on the outcome of the competition or the reception of the performance? Things like that. As a reader, I would like to have those things explained to me, not just told to me. If such information is as important as you say, then these details shouldn't be difficult to add. But if it is truly inconsequential, then I'm back to thinking we shouldn't bog down the article with it. Jacedc (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacedc: I suppose it's quite a subjective thing to convey really. I'm not sure I really could elaborate on it without becoming too personal about it all. As you're the outside party in this, and since we're trying to keep the article as neutral as possible, perhaps removing these details wouldn't be too much of a problem. Making the article as clear for a casual reader is of course the aim. I have removed the references to clothing, but if you think I should alter the other references in that paragraph as well then let me know. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: I think that will be good. Although I do suggest maybe simplifying this part: LED screens simulated road markings on the floor of the stage, while further screens on the background showed a rainy forest scene with trees and birds, transforming into a dry forest scene towards the end of the song. While I don't particularly have a problem with this sentence in general, the amount of detail is a bit needless. Maybe just get rid of the "with trees and birds" part, I think that'll do. Birds and trees are kind of inherent with forestry, especially the latter. Jacedc (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacedc: That's not a problem. I've edited that paragragh again per your request. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: Great! For posterity I'll leave a proper GA checklist below.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Great work! :) Jacedc (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]