Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1974/GA1
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Ligaturama in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ligaturama (talk · contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'll pick this up for review. Hopefully a love of ABBA won't make me too biased. Ligaturama (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
1a
Generally excellent, just a few small notes.
which according to tradition would have made Luxembourg the presumptive host in 1974
- I'd go with just "made Luxembourg the presumptive host". "Presumptive" already implies that they would be the host by default, so the "would have" just confuses it a little. This would be consistent with the article body.completed in 1805 and originally built for the Prince Regent (who would later succeed to the British throne as George IV) as stables and a riding school for his personal use.
- the bit in brackets is a bit irrelevant, I think it can be removed.performed by Anne-Marie David, which, according to Eurovision tradition, made Luxembourg the presumptive host of the 1974 contest.
- comma placement, either "Anne-Marie David which, according to Eurovision tradition, made..." or "Anne-Marie David which according to Eurovision tradition made..." The article lead uses the latter.Awarding the contest to ITV would have effectively barred the BBC from participating, as only one broadcaster from a given country can participate in the event, resulting in the BBC submitting a counter-offer which the EBU subsequently accepted on 7 June 1973.
I don't really understand what this means; why was it an issue that the BBC couldn't participate but it didn't matter if ITV couldn't? Also, I think you can remove the "subsequently".Among the other venues...
- paragraph probably belongs beneath the description of the Dome, rather than under subheading Host Selection.Ultimately, however, only seventeen participating entries were performed
- either remove "however" here as it was used in the previous sentence, or change the one in the previous sentence to "but".in 1964, and 1969, respectively
- these two commas aren't neededartists were able to perform in any language, and not necessarily that of the country their represented.
- "their" should be "they"Rehearsals with the competing acts commenced the following day, with each participating act having a 50-minute slot on stage to perform through their entry with the orchestra; the first rehearsals for all countries were held over two days on 3 and 4 April and were conducted without their stage costumes.
- you've already said rehearsals for acts started the following day (the 3rd) so I suggest condensing this information like "The first rehearsals with the competing acts for all countries were held over the succeeding two days, with each participating act having a 50-minute slot on stage to perform through their entry with the orchestra, but without their stage costumes."The 1974 Eurovision Song Contest has retroactively gained notoriety for a number of aspects
- is "notoriety" the right word here? Most of the section is how it was a launchpad for ABBA and Olivia Newton-John.after starring in the film musicals Grease and Xanadu
- Grease link should be to Grease (film)- @Ligaturama: All comments above have been resolved. Regarding the BBC/ITV issue, as the BBC had been the host of Eurovision within the United Kingdom since its creation, this was more an attempt to convey the BBC's concern that they could be undercut by a commercial rival, which would have potentially led to ITV replacing the BBC in future events as the UK broadcaster. Happy to continue to work on this sentence if you still have concerns. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Great stuff. That explanation makes sense, I think I read it as the EBU being complicit in helping the BBC cut out ITV because the sentence starts with "Awarding the contest to ITV...". I suggest a reword to something like "A successful ITV bid would have effectively barred..." If there's any further information on why the EBU selected the BBC over ITV then that could give some helpful context to round it off a little, but that's optional.
- Everything else looks spot on, good work! Ligaturama (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ligaturama: Good suggestion! I've now resolved this final point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2a
- There are some references that are duplicated so can be consolidated into one named ref, for consistency with the others that already are:
- The Eurovision "How it Works" page [1]
- Corrected. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Songs for Europe vol. 2 by Roxburgh
- While the source itself is used across multiple references, each reference has different page numbers (e.g. 142–148; 149–161; 161–163). Essentially the book is divided into chapters for each contest, so there's a chapter on 1974, but within those chapters there are individual sections or parts which are broken down into different areas, some of which are titled and others not. In order to keep the referencing layout consistent, instead of creating a different section for bibliography and other references, these have been combined and any books used are split in this way when necessary. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Eurovision "How it Works" page [1]
2b
Israel was also some distance geographically from the core of Western European nations which participated in the event at this time, and IBA still lagged behind many European broadcasters from a technological perspective. Awarding the contest to ITV would have effectively barred the BBC from participating, as only one broadcaster from a given country can participate in the event, resulting in the BBC submitting a counter-offer which the EBU subsequently accepted on 7 June 1973.
I assume this is to be supported by the citation at the end of the next paragraph, but it should be cited at the end of this paragraph too.- Fixed. I believe I forgot to re-add the reference when the paragraph was split. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Spot checks
Numbers are from revision ID 1221565003
- 1a
- 1b
The linked page doesn't show that the UK hosted in place of other countries; the closest thing it says is "The United Kingdom has hosted the Eurovision Song Contest 9 times (if we include upcoming Liverpool 2023), stepping in to stage the event when others were unable to do so". Individual links to the pages such as [2] would work.
- Additional ref now added (new ref 10) to cover this oversight. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- 5/28/79
Following the group's win, "Waterloo" went on to top the charts in multiple European countries, including the UK singles chart, as well as reaching the top ten in the Billboard Hot 100.
References don't mention it getting to no. 1 in the UK singles chart.- This is covered in ref 28:
As if to underline how out of touch it all was, four weeks later, Waterloo was the UK No 1, and we all know how things played out for Abba thereafter.
Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, my mistake, apologies. Ligaturama (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is covered in ref 28:
- 6
- 7
- 13
- 30
- 31
- 43
- 66
- 78
- 79a
- 79c ? Don't think this adds anything
- Fair point, I've removed this instance now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- 79d ? Source indicates that the hits were in the latter half of the 1970s as well, so I suggest a little rewording to reflect that
- Another fair point, this sentence has now been rewritten as suggested. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- 84
- 85
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.