Talk:Queen of Kings (song)

Dangerously close to Run to the Hills

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_to_the_Hills_(Klara_Hammarstr%C3%B6m_song) 2A02:1812:1427:2600:DD21:F079:9957:1ED5 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen of Kings (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: JustARandomSquid (talk · contribs) 20:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


As a Eurovision fan, it will be my pleasure to review this! JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The nominator is the author of the vast majority of the article, the article is stable and it contains a references section. I'm also satisfied with the images, they have appropriate licenses and the top image has a valid fair use rationale.

Being bold per WP:GAN/I#R3 and fixing some minor style and grammar issues:

  • "The competition was split into three seven-song semi-finals on the..." → "The competition was divided into three seven song semi-finals that took place on the..." (sounded like those dates were when it was split)
  • "14th, 21st, and 28 January 2023" → "14, 21, and 28 January 2023" (for consistency)
  • "drawn in the first semi-final" → "randomly drawn to compete in the first semi-final" (makes it clearer for those less familiar with Eurovision)
  • "...subsequently was drawn..." → "was subsequently drawn"
  • "Alessandra won both the juries and televote" → "Alessandra received the highest number of points from both the juries and televote" (again, to make it clearer)
  • "dancers who carry glow sticks" → "dancers carrying glow sticks"
  • "meant to show that "the powerful face..." → "meant to show "the powerful face..." (seems to be an error, she says it like this in the Eurovisionworld interview)
  • "repeat of their performance" → "repeat of her performance" (unless she uses they/them pronouns, which I don't see that she does, it sounds like she performed somebody else's performance)
  • "In the televote, "Queen of Kings" was able to receive..." → "In the televote, "Queen of Kings" received" (more concise)

I also see nothing going against the relevant MoS pages. Some words to watch issues, addressed as part of referencing issues. I hope you have no issues with any of my edits. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. That's all for today, I'm going to bed now. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but hopefully I'll be able to finish the rest by next week. Cheers! JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Popped by to tick off criteria 3a and 3b, everything is covered and nothing is unnecessary. Earwig also doesn't detect any copyvio or plagiarism, only various false positives and quotations, so we can tick that off too.

Unfortunately, when it comes to criterion 4, I'm not overjoyed at this article literally saying nothing bad about the song at all. I do realise that critics really did overwhelmingly have a positive response, but still. My suggestion is that in the sentence "In a Wiwibloggs review containing several reviews from several critics, the song was rated 8.06 out of 10 points, earning fifth out of 37 songs on the site's annual ranking" you somewhere add "with only one critic calling it..." and then quote the slightly negative Wiwibloggs review ("The urgent beat here communicates more hype than substance, and lyrically, it’s difficult to decipher its meaning. As Eurovision draws closer, I have become tired of it."). I feel like that would be proportional and wouldn't give the negative opinions any undue weight. Would you be okay with that? JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I just noticed, which I'm not sure if it falls under any of the criteria, but would still like fixed, is this sentence "To further promote the song, Alessandra announced her intent to perform at various Eurovision pre-parties...". This should be updated, did she end up performing? Also, not sure if the exact dates are strictly relevant. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marching onwards, it's spot-check time. Considering this article's comparative shortness and the fact our nominator is presumably busy with college, I'm going to check all the references (minus the ones on chart positions etc.). Very nice of me, I know.

Background and composition

  • 6 and 9 are duplicated.
  • During the whole paragraph, most sources are interviews with Alessandra. Now technically, WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't prohibit you from using them like you did, but personally I'd attribute these statements to her in the text.
  • I see where you're coming from; altered a bit.
  • "the annual competition that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) uses to select its entry for the Eurovision Song Contest" — not in the source cited. If for some reason you really don't want to cite a source for that I'll let it slide as maybe it would be unreasonable to challenge, but I hope it won't come to that.
  • ""Queen of Kings" is described as an ode to female empowerment" — the source doesn't say exactly that, and "ode" sounds like MOS:PUFFERY to me, so I'd avoid that.
  • "with Wiwibloggs writer Oliver Adams stating that the rhythms used within the song "emulate those used in sea shanties" see, for example, I wouldn't bother attributing this to Oliver Adams. Not wrong or anything, just saying.
@Nascar9919 It's a complete non-issue, I was just expressing my preference. I would personally not bother because it's not controversial that it sounds like a sea shanty, but of course that's not in the GA criteria (or even against any guidelines) and I would be out of my mind to insist on that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music video and promotion

  • "...and a remix featuring Italian DJ Gabry Ponte on 1 June." — was it necessary to cite Apple music here? Maybe something like [1] would've been better instead.

Critical reception

  • "but admitting that "it may get lost alongside the other Scandi big hitters at [Eurovision]."" — "admitted" sounds in breach of MOS:SAID to me.

To be continued... JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical recepion (cont.)

  • "National Public Radio's Glen Weldon ranked the song third in his top ten for Eurovision 2023..." No he didn't? He ranks it 9th. Am I missing something?

Eurovision Song Contest

  • "Norway's national broadcaster for the Eurovision Song Contest, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK)" I mean they're generally their national broadcaster, not just at Eurovision.
  • In this whole sentence, the source technically doesn't support it because it doesn't say whether it was actually held. Maybe something like [2] would be better?
  • Same for the next sentence.
  • "The Eurovision Song Contest 2023 took place..." Well... a source would be nice, even if it's obvious.
  • "She was later drawn to perform first in the semi-final..." drawn implies it was random, which at Eurovision it's not — the producers select it. (Ha, my Eurovision knowledge comes in useful.) In fact, looking at some of your other GA Eurovision songs (Hurricane, Espresso Macchiato, Rim Tim Tagi Dim) they have the same issue. Would you agree that this is incorrect?
Which half of which semi is random, but the final running order is determined by producers. (See for example here, I'm sure there's a better source but it's the first I found). JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a better source, which is actually the one you cited. [3] JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four backing dancers carrying glow sticks" they aren't really glow sticks. Glowing sticks, maybe.

And with that we are done. I still haven't got a response from User:Nascar9919, so I'm going to put this on hold. Most of these issues aren't failable, but I'm going to have to insist on removing the potential "ode" puffery, correcting Glen Weldon's review, perhaps finding sources from after the fact for the events and fixing the issue with draw if you agree that implies it's random. The rest would be very much appreciated but technically isn't in the criteria.

Because there's a bit of an experience imbalance between us, feel free to object if I've done anything wrong and ask away if anything is unclear. Great work on this article! JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that I haven't got any feedback at all from @Nascar9919. Are you... you know... alive? JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustARandomSquid: Hey there! Sorry for the wait. I've been in the middle of midterms and I'm about to get ready to go to Phoenix to do photography for a NASCAR race. Got some free time and I'll get to some edits now. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 15:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascar9919 No problem! I'd figured you were busy with college. Just checking you somehow weren't aware I was reviewing your article for whatever reason. Otherwise I wouldn't really care until the 28th. JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascar9919 I'm a bit busy at the moment, but as soon as I'm able to I'll take one last look at what you've done and pass. Great work on the article and for finding time to work on it this past week! JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_of_Kings_(song)