Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]

I have been trying to get this article up to Featured Article standard, and believe that so far I've been pretty successful: it's been approved as a Good Article, after having had a complete re-write by myself last month. I nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate recently, but the nomination failed - primarily because there weren't enough references, and some sections did not have enough detail. I was holding back on some of the detail because I believed that Featured Articles had to be limited in length to max 30k, but was since told that a large article was not a barrier to being featured. I have re-written some things, improved them, and added many references - even going to the extent of buying a hard-copy book in order to use it for offline reference. I believe that the article is excellent, and should be featured - but before I re-submit it for candidacy, I request a Peer Review so that perhaps others may see things which I don't. Ten heads are better than one, when it comes to these things :)

Please give me your feedback on this article's readiness to be re-submitted as a Featured Candidate. I have addressed all the addressable points in the first FA nomination, but want more people to give their opinions before I try again. Thanks! EuroSong talk 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, do accept my apology for not replying to your request for review earlier. I have actually injured my hand and typing takes me a lot more time, which in turn made me develop a singificant WikiBacklog... Furthermore, I want to express my deep appreciation for the extensive efforts you have undertaken to further improve this article and your dedication to this task. Please, however, note that it is my opinion that all articles should be appraised against the same criteria, and not the author's efforts. Some topics are simply broader and tougher to write a comprehensive and all-round-good article on, and therefore will require much more effort from the editors. On the other hand, I believe that the satisfaction from finally reaching the FA target with such articles is greater.
    Let me review this section by section:
Lead section
  1. I am still not convinced that Al-Jazeera and the other site I commented on the last time are the best references for ESC viewing figures. I think EBU released some official info as to the ESC viewership this year, and more historic data can perhaps be found in the EBU archive.
  2. Even though the participants are commonly referred to as "countries", even during the show and by the organisers, the lead section should explains who the participants actually are and what is meant by "countries" (e.g. brodcasters, jury/televoting etc.)
  3. The last paragraph does not fit in well, I believe - first of all, it doesn't really summarize any section of the text, secondly, the current lineup displayed there is quite disputable (were Mocedades really such big format international superstars like ABBA?), and you will have fans perpetually "promoting" their favorites by adding them to the list (e.g. Lordi's or Anna Vissi's main claim to international fame is actually appearing on ESC rather than anything else). It's going to be controversial, I'd simply do away with it, as it doesn't really provide the casual reader with much insight into the contest.
Origins
  1. Very good section, as it was before. I really appreciate the realiable-looking references, though I actually haven't checked them thoroughly... I'd say the middle paragraph could use a reference too - even a trivial one - to keep up with the standard.
Format
  1. This section could still use some development. It doesn't read to well, especially the first paragraph. It's more like a collection of facts dumped together - I think for the casual reader the description might not be that informative. It would be sensible to explain the contest format by discussing the idea behind it.
  2. Again "countries" should be explained.
  3. Postcards and interval acts deserve are kind-of mentioned by the way, while the fact that the event is opened by a presenter is highlighted - I guess the accents are a bit misplaced. I guess presenters, postcards and interval acts all deserve short descriptions - minisections or just paragraphs.
  4. Sadly, no references in this section.
Participation
  1. Another rather good section here, but insufficient references! What in the world is the "European Broadcasting Area"?
Rules
  1. The introductory sentences are both pretty tautologic to me and quite redundant.
  2. Some "hosting rules" and all "other rules" are not referenced. The existance of "other notable rules" section makes me wonder whether there are any non-notable rules.
  3. It is still not explained why would BBC or, in one case, NOS step in as the organiser when the winner declined.
  4. For clarity and better reading I would start the "live music" section with the rules about vocals and then proceed to the discussion of the orchestra. There is no mention of the countries supplying their conductors along with singers in the "orchestra period".
  5. Again, I would start the language section with saying that "songs can now be sung in any language" and only then discuss the historic divertions from the rule. This section is also quit choppy and there is no explanation as to why would the rules go back and forth, and the perceived better chances of songs sung in English. I am also not that happy that there is no mention of imaginary and rare languages any longer - I know somebody was fussy about the rumblings on what language could UK use, but the rest of that section was perfectly legitimate.
  6. Broadcasting rules - reference needed for the rule, as well as formal consequences for the broadcaster. It would also be interesting to discuss, here or elsewhere, NON-participating brodcasters who show the Contest, like the mentioned one from Jordan, or I recently heard about even an Australian one!
  7. I remember Lys Assia said in an interview [1] that in the beginning all the artists, incl. composer, lyricist, singers etc. had to be from the country they represented. It would be good to try to dig out how it was applied in practice and when the rule was abolished.
Selection procedures
  1. Missing references again :(
  2. First and last paragraphs belongs in the previous section
  3. I believe a more systematic discussion of the preselection events/procedures in participating countries and their evolution would be better here - like the influence of Melodifestivalen and later Operacion Triunfo on other countries, the prevailing types of preselections and their historic development (like when did the televoting era begin).
Voting
  1. The first paragraph is one of the few places in text where phrases like "the system which people are most familiar with" appears - this is something of a weasel phrase, and as such statement doesn't really change much, I would avoid that to fend off criticism during prospective FA candidacy.
  2. Missing references again, I am especially interested in how was the televoting experiment a success (I mean how was the "successfulness" determined?)
  3. Are there any countries other than Monaco that still use juries? Is there a country that uses a mixed system?
  4. The first sentence of the "presentation of votes" subsection might not be understand correctly by readers unfamiliar with the show.
  5. I recall seeing a footage of all juries sitting in the studio where the contest was staged and just giving out votes live, so I think it wasn't given by telephone everytime before satellite transmission.
  6. I think that countries have been giving out votes by order of performance, and later when also countries whose songs didn't participate in the final were voting, in alphabetical order, and only this year a special draw of "voting order" was introduced.
  7. I think that Scandinavian countries boycotted the 1970 ESC because of the tie, and this is why EBU was forced to devise tie-break rules.
  8. Discussing what-if in case of the 1991 tie-break is unnecessary.
Expansion of the Contest
  1. First paragraph belongs in the "Participation" section, the second in the "Format" section.
  2. The remaining three subsections are actually rules and belong in this section.
  3. Did I mention insufficient referencing? :D
Semi-Final
  1. Oh, OK, now I understand, more or less, some structuring peculiarities here. I have a proposition of a general rule that would make the article more reader-friendly - discuss the event as is today, and then proceed to go through the historic developments. For example, the semi should be discussed in the format section, then the rules of qualification with the historic perspective in the rules section.
  2. Although I think it never happened, if one of the Big 4 was in the top ten, they wouldn't be counted and the following country, like 11th etc, would gain the right to go straight to the Final next year - this should be clarified.
Hosting
  1. The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!
  2. Otherwise, a very nice section.
Comentators
  1. This section unnecessairly breaks up the nice flow between "Hosting" and "Eurovision Week". I would move it somewhere upwards.
  2. I guess presenters, interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. could be considered for such sections too.
  3. It just occured to me, and I think it is not mentioned anywhere (or perhaps I am that unconscious at 4 AM) that the prize was actually originally meant more for the authors of the song than the artist - somehow this got lost along the way, I still remember the composer of Sweden 1999 getting the prize on stage (a memorable moment for some other reason ;) ). This year, Mr. Lordi got the award - was he the composer and lyricist, or were the authors deprived of the prize sometime earlier?
Eurovision week
  1. I have commented on it already the last time, it is still a very nice section, even though it lacks references (which obviously needs to be rectified). The last subsection is a little choppy.
Winners
  1. The first paragraph actually only pertains to the artists, so it should go into that section.
  2. Other than the lack of references, another really good section!
Criticism
  1. The discussion of musical styles and typical performance styles thorugh the years deserves a separate section, not only devoted to criticisms.
  2. Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general, it is not only a subject of criticism, it's simply a matter of fact. For many people, it is an interesting feature rather than a reason for criticism. So, confining this to a "criticism" section only narrows the issue unnecessairly.
  3. I am, in general, opposed to "criticisms" sections, as their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections, and also this relegates the comments on some various issues to an obscure section at the end of the article, rather than them being located directly where the issues are discussed. I believe it is more natural for them to be discussed there. For example the criticism of different entry selection systems is more or less discussed in that section, and I believe it is much more comprehensible for the common reader that way.
  4. Moreover, the "Criticisms" sections can be accused of being attempts by the editor to smuggle some POV by downplaying them or supplying counterarguments. This can be an obstacle during FA candidacy.
To sum it up - the article has surely improved and is getting really close to the FA status. I understand that it took some very tiresome work and it can really be disheartening to read that people still have some many gripes about it. But please don't dismiss them, as they will be popping out later during FAC. I believe you need more editors to help you, I am sorry I can't contribute that much at that moment, as it already took a sleepless night to type all that with the fingers I have available at that moment :D
I think you might ask guys who put together fan sites like esctoday for assistance - if not with editing articles directly, than at least with helping finding out some peculiarities, like the ones with the rules, and sources. I already have some experience with asking enthusiasts of other subjects for help, and I can tell you it works (not 100%, but still).
Again, I want to reassure you that I want to see this article become an FA as much as you do, and I really appreciate your really extensive efforts in that direction! I hope you won't let fatigue get you so close to the finish line! I hope to be able to be more helpful soon. Regards, Bravada, talk - 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Bravada's comments

[edit]

Hi Bravada, thank you very much - again - for your comments. I especially appreciate it because you obviously spent a long time reviewing the article, and it must have taken you even longer to type this all out - especially with an injured hand! I hope it gets better soon. I am replying to your comments here below, because you used numbered lists in your critique - as you did in the previous FAC. In order to preserve those numbers, I was forced to write in bold, because if I were to have started new lines with indents after each comment (which would have been prefereble), then the numbered lists would have gone wrong. So.. here goes:

Lead section
  1. Re: viewing figures, perhaps you could help me? I find references on the EBU's site to "over 100 million viewers", but nothing other than that. I do know that people have quoted the figures as vastly higher than that, however - once I heard "one billion viewers", but I think this was just a poor guess. However, the figure of 600 million has been heard fairly often. Perhaps the Aljazeera site is not the best source, but it is a source - at least to show the reader, and to back up the article's statement that these figures have been quoted. As the article says, the figures are quoted.. it is not giving a definitive figure, simply because there are a lot of contradicting sources out there. There is surprisingly little of use that I can find on the EBU's site. If you can find something better, please let me know - or edit it yourself :) - Aljazeera is actually a good reference: it's the largest news network which spans Arab countries. Just because it's not European, that doesn't mean it's not relevant :)
  2. Re labelling participants as "countries". Hmm... ok, I shall think about this, and try to make it clearer through the whole article. - Addressed
  3. Re: list of stars to have graced the stage. You're quite right about this list being open to edits by fans wishing to "promote" their favourite artists into it. It has already been happening. However, I do think that there should at least be some mention, in the article's lead, of some of the biggest stars who have participated in the Contest. As the WP guidelines say, "Don't hide the important facts". To the casual reader who does not know much about the Contest, it is important that they realise exactly how big the thing is: that it's not just some obscure talent show full of nobodies. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative, to be included in the lead? Addressed: removed this list from the lead. Replaced with a mention of musical styles.
Origins
  1. Re: reference in the middle paragraph. Hmm, ok... I shall include one. - Addressed
Format
  1. Re: discussing "the idea behind it" in the "Format" section. Isn't the idea behind the Contest discussed already in the "Origins" section? In this Format section, I am trying to mention the things which have always been the case - the bare-bone basics of the Contest. The things quintessential to the idea of the Contest which, if changed, would make it no longer the Eurovision Song Contest. More minor format developments, such as the way in which voting is conducted exactly, and the presence of the semi-final, have changed over the years. I have tried to make this "basic format" section static, to show what is the case every single year, no matter what.
  2. Re: countries. Shall be looked at. - Clarified
  3. Re: weight given to presenter, postcards and interval acts. I shall think about this one.
  4. Re: references. See my comments below about references.
Participation
  1. Re: European Broadcasting Area. Good point. I created a (red) Wikilink to it, with the thought of sometime creating that article.. but you're right: the area should be briefly defined right here in this article. I shall address this, thank you. - Addressed and referenced.
Rules
  1. Re: redundant introduction. That is there because all the rules I have mentioned fall into some sub-category, and without some kind of introductory sentence, the sub-heading would immediately follow the section heading, which looks a bit strange. I don't know how you feel about that. Is that acceptable? If not, then... what else should I write as an introduction to the section? - Addressed: wrote better, more relevant introduction
  2. Re: notable rules. There are very many rules of the Contest - but many of them deal with things which are non-essential to the workings of the Contest, such as rules which specify exactly how many seconds of screen-time sponsors are allowed to display their logos, and when participating broadcasters must make a back-up recording of the transmission feed of the rehearsals, etc. I classify these as non-notable... because if they were all to be included, then we may as well have the entire text of the rules included here, mentioning every single little rule. Hmm.. Perhaps I can make a mention of this in the intro. I shall see about references. - Addressed, as above
  3. Re: explanation of why the BBC and NOS stepped in. I shall try to find appropriate references. - Addressed and referenced
  4. Suggestions about live music section. Thank you - I shall look into this. - Addressed
  5. Re: language rules. I shall look into this. Thanks for reminding me about the made-up languages: a good example of where two heads are better than one, and you could think of something I forgot about :) - Addressed (still the other bit to be addressed)
  6. Re: references and consequences for broadcaster. I shall look into this. Also - yes, thanks for reminding me about non-participating broadcasters. This definitely needs a mention. - Addressed: non-participants mentioned now in the lead. Refs made in Broadcasting Rules section. With regards to mentioning "how the rule is now" (freedom of language mentioned first), I disagree. See my note above about wanting the article to be static, and to make as few references to "this is how it is today" as possible.
  7. Re: older requirement for participants to come from that country. Good point. I shall try to, as you say, dig out this information. - I never actually heard of a nationality restriction before I saw that interview with Lys Assia you mentioned. I tried to find any other references to it, but there are none. I then asked the Eurovision fan community if they had any references to it, and I was reminded that the German entrant in 1956 was actually Austrian - and Lys herself had entered the German final! That rather shows that there was never a rule restricting the nationality. Perhaps Lys got confused when quoting that, referring instead to some Swiss pre-selection rules? Individual countries may impose any further rules they wish, but here we are discussing the EBU's general rules. Good point: this has now been mentioned!
Selection procedures
  1. Re: missing references. I shall have a look.. but again, see my note below.
  2. Re: first and last paragraphs. I disagree. See my note below about rules and sections.
  3. Re: expansion/further detail on selection procedures. Hmm... I shall give this some thought.
Voting
  1. Re: weasel words. You're right. I shall remove this, thank you. Addressed
  2. Re: references about televoting success. Again, I shall try to find something - but see the point below :) - Addressed. It's mentioned in the hard-copy book that it was a success
  3. Re: juries still in use. I shall try to find out. - Can't find any reliable sources saying that any particular countries used backup juries in 2006. The rule is that televoting shall be used, anyway.. and nothing is mentioned otherwise. Backup juries are only there as a backup. The article gives this information as it stands. Nothing to address
  4. Re: confusion of first sentence by readers unfamiliar with the show. People are supposed to be reading the article in order. If they don't, I can not be blamed for their non-understanding, when a later part of the article makes reference to something already established earlier. I presume you're talking about the bit where I mention the interval act, yes? If not, please elaborate.
  5. Re: on-stage juries in 1973. Good point to mention, thank you :) - Addressed and referenced
  6. Re: order of voting. Another good point. It shall be mentioned, thank you. - Addressed (and referenced!)
  7. Re: boycott by Scandinavian countries. Thanks for reminding me. I will try and find a suitable reference for this, and include it. - Addressed and referenced.
  8. Re: "what if" in 1991. Okay, this can be removed. - Addressed
Expansion of the Contest
Re: your proposal to move these paragraphs elsewhere
Okay, this needs a much longer reply. I very strongly disagree with you here. Technically speaking, almost everything in the article could be discussed also under other sections, as there is considerable overlap. However, the expansion of the Contest is a very big deal in its own right. The Contest was pretty stable until 1993, and only then - after there became more countries wishing to participate than there was time in the Contest for - did the rules start changing almost every year, in order to try and find the best system to solve the problem. The expansion of the Contest has been a major theme in the past 13 years of Eurovision's history. It needs its own section, including an explanation of exactly how, why and when the relevant rule and procedure changes came about. To dissolve this section, and incorporate the information into other sections would fail to highlight to the reader the importance of the theme of the Contest's expansion, and the impact which the new countries have had on it.
Semi-Final
  1. Re: your proposed changes to the layout of the article. I'm not too sure about this. One of the things I had in mind, when I completely re-wrote the article, is that I wanted to keep it as static as possible. If the article were to be included on the proposed Wikipedia CD, for example, then I want it to remain relevant and true for as long as possible. The fact is, the rules and format of the Contest have been changing almost every year, for the past ten years! Therefore I didn't want to write an article which starts off saying "this is how the Contest is today" - and then that text would be hopelessly out-of-date a couple of years down the line. That's why I have tried, as much as possible, to focus on the basic evergreen principles of the event, which do not change over time - and the discuss the changing history under relevant, topical section headings. You'll notice that a few times I say things like "as of 2006", instead of "to date" (or similar). With this in mind, do you still propose that the article starts off by explaining how the Contest is today? When it could be included on a WP CD, and then two years later it's inaccurate?
#Re: clarification of Big-Four qualification places. Good point. Yes, I shall explain this. - Addressed
Hosting
  1. Re: The second and third paragraphs desperately need references!. Yes, they do. I shall try to find some. - Addressed
Comentators
  1. Re: proposed moving of section. I shall think about this. Okay.. - Moved
  2. Re: sections on interval acts, postcards, composers, conductors, lyricists etc. Wouldn't the article then just get too bloated and/or unnecessary? I mean... what can one really say in a "lyricists" section? - Mentioned all the delegation elements in "Eurovision Week" section, alongside a referenced description of Head of Delegation. We don't need a whole separate section on composers.. any notable composers of notable songs should by mentioned in that song's article.
  3. Re: prize going to songwriters. This is still (and has always been) the case. Mr Lordi got the award this year because he wrote the song, not because he performed it. The fact that he was also a performer is not relevant. Yes - the trophy is awarded to the winning songwriter. This never got lost along the way :) This is mentioned in the article. - Answered your question right here :) Nothing to change in the article, it's correct as it is.
Eurovision week
  1. Re: references in this section. Please see my note about references below. How is the last subsection "choppy"? - Added references to this section
Winners
  1. Re: first paragraph. You're right, it does only pertain to the artists. However, again - if it were not there, then there would be nothing to separate section headings. Perhaps I should then also mention something about winning countries in that paragraph.
Criticism
  1. Re: discussion of musical styles (Addressed in lead) and typical performance styles thorugh the years. What would you write, in a separate section here? The music is vastly diverse - it's impossible to "define" a Eurovision song in an encyclopædia. Unless you want to write such things as "The first rap song in the Contest appeared as late as 1995"...
  2. Re: "Block and political voting should be discussed alongside voting in general". Disagree. I have tried to keep the "voting" section concentrated simply on the voting procedures and presentation, as per the format and rules of the Contest. Not to go into actual examples of voting patterns. Those belong in the separate sub-article. If I were to start discussing voting patterns in the main article, then the section could be expanded to be as long as the whole rest of the article!
  3. Re: your objection to "criticisms" sections. Where in the WP guidelines does it say the things you said? You said that their existence might imply that there are no "criticisms" of the subjects whose articles do not contain such sections. Well... there are really no notable (and certainly not referenced!) criticisms of other aspects of the Contest, are there? What would you have me include? A note about how some fans bemoan the loss of the orchestra? Such things are relatively minor, and there are no good references for such things. However, the Contest is well-known for being accused of political voting bias, and there are many references to back up this criticism.
  4. Re: possible accusations of downplay of criticism. You seem to contradict yourself here. On one hand you're saying that having a criticisms section could be construed as downplaying them. However, in the preceding point you said it is more natural for criticisms to be discussed in their relevant sections. Surely to have a whole separate section entitled "Criticisms" serves to highlight these points! To downplay them would be to "smuggle them in" to the relevant sections.
The "see below" reply to references
I think I mentioned this in my response to the FAC points, but no-one gave me a counter reply. There is surprisingly little which has actually been published in hard-copy about Eurovision over the years (in English, anyway!). This makes it hard to find references for every little thing. I have tried my best to include decent web references for many things, but... it seems like you are picking holes in many paragraphs and sections, accusing them of having no references. Not every little statement needs references, though. Surely the purpose of references is so that any major statement of fact can be checked, if it might otherwise be disputed - or any sentence involved in the quotation of statistics. Obviously such statements as the fact that Melodifestivalen is the most-watched TV programme of the year in Sweden, do need references.. as they're bold statements, and should definitely be verifiable. As indeed I have included a reference for this. However, there are other statements which are made which are a) not bold, disputable statements and b) simply do not have published references. You say that "sadly there are no references" in the "Format" section. Well... does it need any? Which statements need references? There are no bold, questionable statements here. The "verifiability" of the format can be seen simply by watching one of the Contests! Just because there are no references in a whole section, that does not mean that the section is bad - and therefore it is a barrier to the article attaining Featured status. Perhaps the section in question simply does not need references? There are many Featured Articles which I have seen, which have very few references. See Supply and demand, for example. I do accept your point that some articles require a lot more in order to attain Featured status than others - and yes, Eurovision is a big topic which needs a lot of work. But still, it does get tiresome when the major knockbacks of a nomination come from people saying that there are not enough references. A complaint about references should only be made if someone sees a statement which surprises them, and which they may dispute, but the statement is not referenced (and therefore could have been inserted into the article by a troublemaker wishing to mislead). The entire lead section to Supply and demand contains not one single reference, although it includes several statements which could possibly be questioned.
You suggested that I use esctoday for references. Well, as I stated in the FAC, I am reluctant to use fan sites as reference points. The reason for this is simple: I am Chris Melville, webmaster of eurosong.net. I have my own unofficial fan site, and consequently, if I wanted to, I could just make up all the references I ever wished to do, by publishing anything I liked on my own site, and then using it as a reference in an encyclopædia article! I strongly believe that fan webmasters should be discouraged from using fan websites as reference points, for any article on Wikipedia. Fans - especially Eurovision fans - have a certain way of seeing things, which is rarely encyclopædic. I am discounting myself here, when writing this article, as I am writing in as encyclopædic style as I can. If I wanted to push my POV, then I would write "Eurovision is the greatest thing in the whole world" :)
So, to sum up: please do not dismiss the article simply because some paragraphs and sections do not have references per se. If there is a single, disputable statement which is unreferenced, then please let me know about it. In the Featured Articles candidates page, I see an increasing number of reviewers dismissing articles due to lack of references, without actually saying which statements need them. This is a trend that I think we should be getting away from.
And, to sum up more finally - thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate them, especially because they have been written with an injured hand! I have marked the points I will address in the article. But please respond to my other comments too. Some of the things you said, especially about layout of the article, seem to be simply your own POV, in the way that you would have written the article had it been yourself working on it recently. These are not WP guidelines, and it should not be a barrier to an article attaining featured status, just because another editor would have written it differently. I am glad that you appreciate my efforts: the article is certainly a lot better now than it was before I re-wrote it, when I had slapped a cleanup tag on it because it was in a terrible state! Thanks :) EuroSong talk 14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hello Chris!
Nice site you've got there, though your visitors obviously know nothing about song quality - Serteb in the first place? ;)
Thanks :) Sertab's in first place because just before ESC2006, I had thousands of Turks registering and giving Turkish entries 10/10. It's a problem I need to deal with... I do allow people to vote for their own country, but only after I make them "sign" an honesty pledge which states that they will only vote with their heart according to how much they like the song, and not just support their own country. Unfortunately it looks like many people ignore it, but it's impossible for me to prove that any one individual is not voting with their heart! I'm working on it :)
OK, we've only had one review her by a person injured in more ways than one (does ego count?) and a reply and we're already over 30k! Let's get back to business...
Your ego is injured? How do? I hope it's nothing I said. Again, I do greatly appreciate your input here: it's already made the article improve a lot!
Where do I start? Ok, let's do references first:
  • References
I do believe an article needs references - it is the only proof it does not contain original research (it is also a good self-check). I know it's hard, tedious and annoying to have to find references for absolutely obvious stuff, but, well, that's how the whole encyclopedia thing works. The old Featured Articles are sometimes missing references, it's because WP has been evolving. If you notice one w/o references, you should probably nominate it for delisting. That said, it should probably be quite easy to find good references for Supply and demand and I feel quite guilty for not doing that now given my background...
What is your background? Are you an economist? :) At this point I'd like to draw your attention to today's FA, Final Fantasy X. See the list of references at the bottom. Over half the so-called "references" are quotes from the actual game itself. In order for the casual reader to be able to use these references to verify facts, then they would have to go and actually play the game and familiarise themselves with the characters. And this is a FA... what difference, then, to simply make use of such references as "Watch the Eurovision Song Contest and you'll see!"? I could easily just say such things. Final Fantasy X is good enough to be a FA when half the references are self-references.
As concerns ESC fansites, there are many, but some are better than others. ESCtoday seems quite professionally edited and I have even learned the guy behind it is now employed by the EBU itself to revamp the official Eurovision site. If you have a problem with a reference, I think this might be a good bet, so many sources actually cite it - I even see your own site is using their news feeds!
Yes, Sietse (the webmaster) has been offered a job with the EBU, which is great for him. However, there is one caveat I should mention. ESCtoday is indeed a very good site, and the editors do a lot of good work. It also looks very polished and professional, with slick graphics. However, a lot of the time, the English used is a bit dodgy. The writing style is also often somewhat less-than-formal, with sensationalist exclamation marks peppered around the place, and this is not exactly what one would hope for when seeking a formal reference. Such words as "newsitems" do not exist in English. You see, I put a great deal of importance in correct English, and much of my activity on Wikipedia involves correcting mistakes. Therefore I am reluctant to refer to sources which are not written as I would wish them to be. I have also come across several facts referenced at partyvision.co.uk: a site which could have been used as a reference, but I decided not to because it does not have the look and the feel of a formal, reliable source (even though the information is correct).
But ultimately the solution I tried to suggest to you is to turn to people who run really information-rich sites to chip in their knowledge and years of devotion to ESC to help you find references (and perhaps also enrich the article with more info). I think it's always better to get some help, and I think at least some of them can help you immensely with this article.
Hmm. How much bigger can the article get? It's already 53k. I have expanded it a lot, after you told me that there was no barrier on FAs being over 30k. However, surely there must be some reasonable limit. I mean, if there were really no limits then I could write ten times the amount which is currently there, giving an extremely detailed complete history of the Contest! But that's what sub-articles are for. In the main article, I believe that a concise and informative overview of the whole Contest should be given, including as much detail as it required in each of the sections to leave the reader feeling that they have a complete understanding of what the ESC is and how it works. Matters such as detailed voting patterns - who gives 12 points to who else most frequently, etc - do not belong in the main article
Over for now, will get back to that later, please bear with me... Bravada, talk - 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing with you :) EuroSong talk 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Eurovision_Song_Contest/archive1&oldid=1159305547"