Talk:Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 
   • Only one WP:RS is used, the other fifty-five are to two blog sites. Mny paragraphs are completely unreferenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

I am quick failing this, due to the complete lack of WP:RS for the bulk of the article. For that reason it does not meet WP:B-class_criteria at present. The prose also needs copy editing to improve readability. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

I note that another editor has reverted the addition of tags asking for verification of sources, citing in the edit summary that these sources have consensus as being reliable. Please provide evidence of this as per WP:Burden. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey all. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing this article on hold, but I'm leaning strongly towards failing it - there are just too many issues here for it to be GA. Unless there is some significant improvement within a week, I will decline to list it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's been some good work done here, but it's not quite up to GA standards yet. Feel free to try again in a couple of weeks once the remaining issues have been addressed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "18 artists...eight songs" = need consistency in numbering That is fine per WP:MOSNUM. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Was the final "grand" or "gold"?
• The article needs a serious general copyedit. There are many grammatical errors and awkward phrases.
• The article lacks a consistent encyclopedic tone
• The Melodi Grand Prix section should be reordered - I would suggest putting "Format" after either "Planning" or "Entries", and possibly incorporating "Schedule" into the rest of the text
• Wikilink televote?
• This article should be almost entirely in the past tense - check
• Check word choices for meaning. For example, amount ≠ number in this context
• The article could use a few more wikilinks, but the same term should not be linked more than a couple of times
• Check for redundant wording
• If you're going to translate the titles of some Norwegian-language songs, you should translate all of them
• What does the term "Draw" mean in the tables? Some confusion, as I've heard it used to mean "tie". Consider ordering in terms of placement - winner first, then runner-up, etc...or pick a different term
• Clarify the format of Eurovision - the first paragraph in "At Eurovision" is a bit confusing for non-European readers
• All acronyms should be spelled out on first appearance
• People should not be referred to by first name only - instead of "Maria", use "Storeng"
• I would suggest adding an "External links" section

Accuracy and verifiability

• Per this, Oikotimes may not be the most reliable source. I would suggest replacing it wherever possible, and be cautious in using it extensively
• There should be at minimum one source per paragraph, usually more
• Citations needed for:

• holding the Melodi Grand Prix in almost every case to select their Eurovision entry
• Format
• despite the controversy that has arisen in recent years over the amount of songs written by Swedish composers that can be found in the competition
• 34% of entries were written by Norwegians composers, with the rest coming from elsewhere in Europe and beyond.
• 34% of entries were written by Norwegians composers, with the rest coming from elsewhere in Europe and beyond.
• All tables
• The EBU split up countries with a friendly voting history into the two different semi-finals, to give a better chance to other countries to win
• For her performance, she received 106 points, placing fourth in a field of 19. She received 1 points from, Belgium and Germany, 2 points from Slovenia and Spain, 3 points from Moldova, 4 points from Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania, 5 points from the Netherlands, 6 points from Israel, 7 points from San Marino, Azerbaijan, Poland and Russia, 8 points from Estonia, Armenia and Ireland, 10 points from Andorra and the maximum 12 points from Finland, with Greece being the only country to give no points to Norway
• Maria gave a repeat performance in the final on 24 May 2008, where she performed 25th and last in the running order, performing after eventual winners Russia. She received 182 points in the final, placing 5th of 25 competing countries. Maria received the most points from neighbouring Finland and Sweden, who each gave their 12 points to Norway. Maria also received 10 points from Denmark and Iceland, as well as 8 points from Estonia. Norway itself gave 8 points to Iceland, 10 to Bosnia and Herzegovina and their maximum 12 points to Denmark. Maria's result gave Norway its first top 5 placing since 2003.

• Ref 27 is broken

Broad

• The article focuses much more on the Melodi Grand Prix than on Eurovision - since it's an article that purports to be about Norway in Eurovision in 2008, there should be at least an equal amount of material about Eurovision, if not more
• Avoid needless repetition of material

Neutrality

• Take a look at WP:WTA and WP:Weasel - certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided
• Maintain encyclopedic tone at all times

Stability

No issues noted

Images

No issues noted; although the article could use another image, this is not required by GA