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

Nominator: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will conduct this review soon. Jordano⁵³ 02:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to an in-depth review, I will analyze the article for any criteria for immediate failure.

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
• Nope- seems to be close in all criteria.
2. It contains copyright violations
• Earwig is happy, no close paraphrasing here
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
• None present nor needed.
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
• Stable as can be.
5. It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article
• N/A.

Great! Not an immediate fail.

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   I fixed a few things that I saw in the article, there are just a few things that require your attention:
   • "the broadcaster received over 80 submissions from a diverse group of artists and composers, encompassing participants among others from Albania, Kosovo, Italy and the United States"
     • Was the selection diverse in other ways than location? If so, be a bit more specific. If not, I would remove the "from a diverse group of artist and composers" section of the text.
   • "For the first time, the selection panel was only informed of the identities of the applicants after the submission process had concluded aimed to ensure a fairer outcome in the selection."
     • Had there been controversy about this in the past? A little rationale behind the decision may be important for context.
   • Any reason for the split for the tables? Why are they divided between established and new artists? Is the distinction important for the show? If so, perhaps include that in the article. If not, I would just merge the two - the table will not be too large to navigate comfortably.
     • Ah, I see now that there is a reason, though it is mentioned later in the article. I would perhaps include that earlier in the article, prior to the table.
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   Complies with MOS- no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   Sure does! Reference formatting is correct.
   2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
   A few issues relating to reliability of sources:
   • Citations 13, 17, and 33 are deemed problematic according to WP:ESC/S. Consider using a different source for these.
   • Citations 22 and 24 seem to be the blog relating to a Eurovision fan club. I would consider using a different source for this information.
   3. it contains no original research; and
   No OR is present. All is referenced.
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
   Nope, none present.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   Article covers necessary scope of its topic.
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   Remains focused on main details.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
No bias, objective writing.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is a stable article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   Non-free logo has proper free-use rationale, commons photo is properly formatted.
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   Relevant and captioned.

Ultimately, this is a very strong article! It just needs a few touch-ups in structure/clarity, as well as a few citations that need addressing. I trust that these will be relatively easy fixes and once addressed this article will be granted GA. FiK is always one of my favorite national finals- I'm super excited to see how Zjerm does this year. Jordano⁵³ 03:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Iaof2017 and Jordano53: where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failing this due to a lack of activity from the nominator. Should you return, please feel free to address the above concerns and re-nominate. Jordano⁵³ 19:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jordano53 Could you update the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2025 so I can tally your points? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @IntentionallyDense: Done! Sorry for delay. Jordano⁵³ 18:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]