Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet/GA1

GA Review

The 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.

---

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 09:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Sims2aholic8. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. I see you currently have other reviews in progress, but there probably won't be too much to say here. I made a change to the article by removing a link that seems like a copyright violation (per WP:LINKVIO). I'll get to reviewing the rest of the article in a bit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• The second paragraph starts with a large run-on sentence (i.e. The contest was organised...). I'd suggest revising this.
• Three places in the 1993 Eurovision Song Contest, held on 15 May in Millstreet, Ireland, were provided for countries which had never taken part before, and seven countries ultimately sent entries to be performed and voted on in the televised contest in Slovenia.
  • I feel like the information structure of this sentence is kind of backwards. I'd suggest revising it so that the seven countries participating come before. E.g. starting with something like "Seven countries performed in the contest, three of which could advance to the 1993 Eurovision song contest, [...]". Revise as you like with extra information you feel may be missing here.
  • Ultimately? What is this word trying to emphasize?
• and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia were chosen... - I'd suggest changing the first "and" here to another conjunction (such as "with") to reduce repetition of the same word.

I may come back to the lead when I've done the rest of the review to see if everything is verified. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Background

• competition organised annually by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and featuring participants - I'd suggest removing the "and" here, as it is connecting relative clauses of different types (the first being passive, and the second being a gerund).
• this increase in interest was the result of many new countries being formed following the breakup of Yugoslavia and dissolution of the Soviet Union and as part of revolutions leading to the fall of communist regimes in Europe and across the world which took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s - A run-on sentence similar to the one in the lead. Please revise.
• To accommodate this new interest.... The rest of this sentence is very long. I'd suggest breaking it up.
• I'd suggest bundling citations 9 and 11-13 (WP:CITEBUNDLE). I left out the tenth citation because I'm fairly certain it's not possible to bundle references that are also cited elsewhere.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Another comment:

• and Petar Ugrin and Mojmir Sepe serving as musical directors and leading the RTVSLO Revue Orchestra - The word "and" appears three times in roughly fifteen words. Revise to remove repetition. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Participating countries

• By February 1993 however the... - Add commas before and after "however"
• Diggiloo.net does not seem to be a reliable source, as some of it may be user-generated. Per their FAQ: "However, it should be noted that not all info can be trusted, as a lot of it is submitted by our visitors". If some of the information in the table is not verified in the other sources, I'd suggest finding another one to verify it.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Contest overview

• The three countries which received the most votes once all countries had voted, and thus progressed to the Eurovision Song Contest 1993, were...
  • "Which" should be "that", as this is a restrictive relative clause (see dictionary.com)
  • once all countries had voted - Isn't this fairly self-evident?
  • Remove commas. The first one shouldn't be there because "thus progressed..." is a dependent clause; the second one should be removed because commas should not come after restrictive relative clauses.
• Estonia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, which... - This sentence is long. I'd suggest revising.
• Should the entries in the table that won be bolded? They're already highlighted with a different colour.
• I'm also not sure how I feel about the results being showed in the order they ran rather than their final place in the contest. The head of the table frames it as being about the results, but the ordering suggests something different.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Detailed voting results

• These jurors was based in the studio
  • were based
  • What does "based in the studio" mean? Located? In that case, which studio?

ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Broadcasts

• The broadcast was taken - Taken? I'm not sure that is the right word here.
• Should the cells in the table really read as "unknown" rather than just being empty? I don't think editors should be able to state that something is unknown unless the references state explicitly that the information is unknown.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

All of the images are relevant and have proper licencing:

• File:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet.png has appropriate non-free use rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia.
• File:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet Map.svg seems to be copied from File:Europe Map.svg, but that was released into the public domain, so no attribution is needed.
• File:Eurovisie Songfestival 76 Den Haag Ambasadori (Joegoslavie), Bestanddeelnr 928-5016 (cropped).jpg was donated by the Dutch National Archives. I presume this has proper copyright clearance.
• File:Janika Sillamaa, Pärnu rannas 1994.jpg was uploaded by photographer Jaan Künnap through his account.

I'd suggest adding alt text, but this is not a criterion for good articles. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial overview

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):

   Many long run-on sentences. Some overuse of the word "and". Inappopriate commas.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All the sources seem reliable. I have not been able to verify the information with some of the offline sources, but I'll assume good faith about no copyright violations or original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Nothing to comment on here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious bias

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I'll wait till you've read through this review and edited the article accordingly before I check this.

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):

   Maybe add alt text (not required)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, this is a well-research article that fulfills most of the GA criteria. It does, however, need some revisions with its prose to comply with the first criterion.

I'll go through the article again after you've made your changes. Good work so far. I'll place the article on hold for now. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: Thanks for reviewing this! I believe I have covered the majority of the points above. A few comments from my side.

• Instead of bundling the citations as you suggested I split the sentence and also split the ref placements to make in clearer which are related only to the contest location being originally in Portorož and the credits.
• Diggiloo.net is generally considered reliable by WikiProject Eurovision for the purposes of confirming the language of the songs. All other information is covered by the other references provided, but they do not specify the language.
• The formatting of the tables has been agreed by WikiProject Eurovision to ensure consistency across all our individual contest articles. The section itself is about the overall contest, not just the results, so there is a logic to keeping the table sorted initially by running order. If you believe that the table caption is misleading then I'm happy to work on an alternative that would suit better.
• I have removed the "Unknown" text from those cells in the broadcast table where there is no verifiable information available, keeping the {{N/A}} templates but with no output. I'm not 100% certain however if this might cause accessibility issues (even if this is not a required part of the GA review process), but I'm hoping keeping the N/A template will be sufficient?

Please let me know your thoughts or if you believe there are still outstanding points that require addessed before the GA review can be completed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing else to add to the comments you provided here, but I'd like to see where the consensus for diggiloo.net is located. I haven't been able to locate it myself. I'll get to the changes you made in a bit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find anything outstanding left in the article, and if there is, it certainly isn't enough to detract from any GA criteria significantly. I'll wait until I get a response for the diggiloo.net source to pass this article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: There is nothing that has been specifically written within our WikiProject to concretely state that Diggiloo is reliable, however there is an informal understanding that for the purpose of languages in the tables that it is reliable. I mentioned Diggiloo in a RfC from 2021 on participation tables in the "Country in Competition" articles (e.g. San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest) as a source for languages and this was not disputed. Other articles with Diggiloo as a source have also previously passed GA review. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer another source, but seeing as you seem to have researched the article very well, it is just possible the information isn't available elsewhere. The information cited to the source isn't patricularly controversial, so I feel comfortable passing this. Other editors may feel different, but the inclusion of a single potentially sub-par source doesn't seem like enough to hold it back from GA status. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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.