Talk:Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

Thank you Johanna for taking time out of your schedule to review this, I am looking forward to seeing the outcome and reading your views. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from reviewer

• In the infobox, why does it say "final date" where there is no first date? If it was all on one date (which it seems like it was…?) is there a way to change that parameter?

The infobox template used {{Infobox Song Contest}} which is pre-structured. The concert itself was held on 31 March 2015, but was not broadcast live on that date. Wes Mouse ✒

• I don't love the use of the word "pre-recorded" with a link to live television. Assuming this is an event without an album release, I would put something like "was a live television concert programme…"

I like the sounding of that, and will change it accordingly. Wes Mouse ✒

• Be sure that the lead echoes the structure of the article and includes at least some information from all the major sections.

I'll work on that once the other issues have been cleaned up. Wes Mouse ✒

• Link to BBC if you're going to link to the other one.

In which section do you mean? Wes Mouse ✒

In the lead. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "For more details on the host city, see London." This is unnecessary--most people will know what London is. :) Just put a link in the body of the section and it should be fine.

I've removed it per suggestion. Wes Mouse ✒

• Also, link to Eventim Apollo and Hammersmith in that section.

 Done Wes Mouse ✒

• Why do you have the work parameters in the article as web addresses (i.e. bbc.co.uk)? If I'm not mistaken, shouldn't it be in plain text as in BBC?

I'm not sure which section you mean. Wes Mouse ✒

It's everything--a reference concern. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I find having both the work and the publisher often repetitive, but you can keep it if you want to.

I'm not sure which section you mean. Wes Mouse ✒

Once again, it's a reference thing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "similar to the show Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest which took place in 2005." This is not an independent clause--it should not be separated by a semicolon.

The semicolon is there because that is how the previous anniversary show was stylised, as is also used in the article title for 50th anniversary show. Or do you mean the other one that separates "sixty-years of the Eurovision Song Contest" from "similar to the show"? Wes Mouse ✒

Yes, I meant that one, but it appears to have been fixed somehow.

• "At that time…" at what time?

I've cleared that bit up and rephrased it to read "The details regarding the title of the show were unknown at the time the announcement was made". Wes Mouse ✒

• "Executive producer of the 2015…" Either remove the two commas or replace the phrase with "Edgar Böhm, executive producer of the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest…"

Changed it to your suggestion version. Wes Mouse ✒

• Is "Format" the best title for this whole level two header section?

Yes. This is a section heading used on all contest related articles under WikiProject Eurovision. Wes Mouse ✒

• "Norton, co-hosted" should be "Norton, who co-hosted"

 Done Wes Mouse ✒

• If that file is at the show, specify that in the caption.

I'm struggling to come up with a suitable caption. Please would you be so kind as to advise me on some suggestions? Wes Mouse ✒

Maybe "Graham Norton and Petra Mede, the show's two hosts, during the show at the Eventim Apollo."

• Does "Tickets" need its own subsection?

I don't suppose it does. Any recommendation on where to relocate this content? Wes Mouse ✒

Whatever you've done is fine. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The show" is a bit of an informal title--maybe it should be "Show" or "Programme"

I've changed it to "Programme". Sounds better that way. Wes Mouse ✒

After changing the header to "programme", and closer examination, I have made the new header into a level 2, and changed the "participating countries" into a level 3. These sections work well together as they are regarding the main concert itself. Wes Mouse ✒

• The link to broadcast delay at the beginning of this section is a bit of a WP:EASTER

I thought that too. However, I couldn't find any article for "recorded live". The nearest to it was broadcast delay. Any suggestions on improving this? Wes Mouse ✒

I think no link is fine. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the "draw" column in the table numbered "01", "02", etc? Is that a British thing or something?

I assume so, yes. It is to depict the running order of the performances, similar to how it is done for the main annual contests such as Eurovision Song Contest 2015. Wes Mouse ✒

• In the "broadcasting unknown" section, why are there flags?

To keep uniformity and consistency with the rest of the article, as flags are also used in the broadcasting section. Really they should be linked to their respective Eurovision articles using {{Esc}}. Not sure why they were changed to {{flagu}}. Wes Mouse ✒

• Ref 26 (this) is dead.

I'll webarchive that link (hopefully that will do the trick). Wes Mouse ✒

Yes, that worked. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Okay, I'm done. Looks like a nice article. I can pass after you clean this stuff up. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: I have addressed the issues raised and left some questions on a few of them. Thank you for taking the time to review this, really appreciate it. Wes Mouse ✒ 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: See my responses above. Any substantial responses that I did not answer are fine. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: OK I have rewritten the lead section to include major points from the article. The references have been cleaned up, with only the eurovision.tv ones being left as they are; because the website eurovision.tv is a publication owned by the EBU. I think I've addressed all the points above, but if there are any I have missed then please let me know. Thank you. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Wonderful. Pass. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Final assessment

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: