Talk:Rim Tim Tagi Dim/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ImStevan (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this article could receive good article status

Writing

It is reasonably well written.

(prose, spelling, and grammar):
(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

At certain points in the article, the terms "grand final" and "final" are used a lot in succession
- @ImStevan: Done? Let me know if this works for you. Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 14:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks — IмSтevan ^talk 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any grammatical errors in this article, and the article follows a structure similar to that of related articles — IмSтevan ^talk 14:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verified

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

(reference section):
(inline citations to reliable sources):
(OR):
(copyvio and plagiarism):

Eurovision Fun

Eurovision Fun is used as a source in multiple places (refs 36, 37, 38, 40 and 42), despite recommended caution for the site, change the sources if possible — IмSтevan ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I'd like to, they're the only site that publishes betting odds on a periodical basis. Wiwibloggs does it once in a blue moon, and no other site bothers to publish them. Will this still work? Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 15:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess it's fine since they included screenshots of said odds. Perhaps adding an additional source such as EurovisionWorld through the Internet Archive would be benefitial — IмSтevan ^talk 15:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Passed Earwig with flying colors (10.7% match) — IмSтevan ^talk 15:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check

Done — IмSтevan ^talk 14:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Should clarify, chekced sources 15, 92, 16, 118, 74 — IмSтevan ^talk 09:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

It is broad in its coverage.

(major aspects):
(focused):

The article covers all aspects of the song and its influence, whilst not straying off the track — IмSтevan ^talk 09:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

Stability

It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

No comments here, passes based on the article history — IмSтevan ^talk 15:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

(images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
(appropriate use with suitable captions):

Cover

The cover is properly rationaled as non-free — IмSтevan ^talk 15:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative images

Commons contains some images from the Eurovision pre-party tour that could be used in the promotion section. Other than that, the one picture used in the article is on commons and uploaded by the author, and has an appropriate caption — IмSтevan ^talk 15:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImStevan: Added photo. Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 08:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Overall, the article is properly referenced, covers all aspects of the composition, is sufficiently long and illustrated properly. Looking forward to reading other articles from this contributor — IмSтevan ^talk 09:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]