Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tomica (talk · contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon. From first view looks like it can become GA, but additional work is needed. — Tomica (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Tomica, and we look forward to reading your comments for your review process. If any additional work is required, then we're happy to cooperate and rectify/iron-out any minor hiccups. I should note that we are aware of a few dead links from the site ESCToday.com; they are a result of the company being hacked into a few weeks ago, when they lost 12-years of work in a matter of seconds. There is a similar cite 'ESCDaily' which hold similar articles that could easily replace the dead links. Although some editors have queried the reliability of ESCDaily recently. Wesley☀Mouse 18:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will see what gonna do with those dead links, but replacement is needed yeah. Are they planning to re-work and add the information back? I mean are you aware? — Tomica (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From their reports at the time of the incident, they (ESCToday) did state that they would try and get back as much of the work as possible. But naturally estimating a time-scale for them to get 12-years work back is near impossible. Which was why I had suggested to the project a while back about using a similar site (ESCDaily) as a back-up plan, as they tend to publish almost identical news articles. Wesley☀Mouse 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, here is the Discussion on article page and project page. Wesley☀Mouse 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links
  • 15, 16, 17, 19, 33, 80, 77, 76, 96, 85, 93, 98, 95, 99, 105, 107. = 16. Some solution has to be done for this.— Tomica (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - Replaced with new reliable sources covering the same news that the previous deadlinks where covering. Wesley☀Mouse 21:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on what is happening here? Everything seems to have gone quiet for a few days. Discussions regarding the split jury/televoting tables have gone silent, and nobody seems to be making a clear consensus either way about what to do with them. Are we able to continue with the rest of the review in the meantime, then at least we can doing something about this GA. Nothing wrong in us going back to the split table discussion once we've covered the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references are the only issue remaining (apart those tables), will continue tomorrow or later today with the review.— Tomica (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed - All references have now been tidied up. {[t|cite web}} has now been added to raw references that didn't previous have them, and any missing data from references that did have cite web have been filled in. Wesley Mouse 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • It does not follow the format WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the whole article. It can be better. Like this it reads pretty rough. I know that you followed the format of the previous ESC's, but still they are not GA. — Tomica (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of all ESC articles have been discussed at an RfC on the project talk page, and based on the suggestions, a new style was created. This standardization is currently being rolled out on the older articles, and have made dramatic improvements to those articles. The same layout was then implemented onto this article, and again a huge difference in the flow was noticeable. I will work on tidying up the lead now, and then work on the other areas shortly after. Wesley☀Mouse 19:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed - Shuffled the lead around to give it more chronological summary flow (in accordance to order of sub-sections on article). This may need to be fixed again, pending the review comments for the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 20:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It reads and flows better. But I was thinking of also adding some additional info. In which avenue was held, was it built back in time or now to held the contest. Mention the graphic design, the contest spawned criticism also that. — Tomica (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, yes I understand what you mean, and will gladly add the extra information. I was assuming that other areas of the article was also to be reviewed; and waiting to see if any alterations would need to be made to those sections first, so that brief details could also be included into the lead. Wesley☀Mouse 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Expanded - Its amazing how much I am learning from this review alone about writing a decent article. Added a few small but precise lines to the lead, regarding the venue, the graphic design, and criticism concerns that spawned. Wesley☀Mouse 16:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the lead now?:) This is smthg different. — Tomica (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like how you've slightly alter the wording. It has made a difference and make the opening summary very inviting; so that the general audience would be hooked to want to continue reading the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be interesting for the users to continue to read the whole article. ;) — Tomica (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

  • I read the whole section. The prose reads good. But I really think that there should be some background information too. Like which edition of the contest was this one, why it was held in Baku (following its win), a little bit of history about Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. It will really make the reading better and the article would be like more informative. — Tomica (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture for the proposed venues breaks the Format section. It should be placed upper. — Tomica (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed - Added some background information about Azerbaijan's history in the contest, and how they came about being the hosts. There is a mention already about which edition the contest is in that section (towards the end). Trying to think of a way to word it somewhere near the top, without it confusing the remaining section. Wesley☀Mouse 20:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

  • The references number 24 is the source for the whole paragraph? If it's so place it like 2 times plus in the end of some random sentences. — Tomica (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the second time in the Eurovision Song Contest that 26 countries were in the final, the first being the 2003 Contest. : WP:OR — Tomica (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - The paragraph has a reference 25 sneakily hiding in the second paragraph. Moved it to the end, and also duplicated ref 24. Added a new ref, to verify the 26 countries statement, and remove the WP:OR prospect. Wesley☀Mouse 20:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-final allocation draw[edit]

  • The participating countries, excluding the automatic finalists (Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom), were split into six pots, based upon how those countries voted in past contests. From these pots, half (or as close to half as possible) competed in the first semi-final on 22 May 2012. The other half in that particular pot competed in the second semi-final on 24 May 2012. ---> Not sourced, so again we meet with WP:OR. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh this one is easily fixed. The source for it (number 28) has been placed at the end of the wrong sentence. The double-sentence The draw that determined the semi-final running order was held on 25 January 2012 at the Buta Palace.[28] The participating countries, excluding the automatic finalists (Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom), were split into six pots, based upon how those countries voted in past contests. From these pots, half (or as close to half as possible) competed in the first semi-final on 22 May 2012. should really be covered by ref 28. I'll move that accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 19:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Fixed. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic design[edit]

  • Each introductory postcard begins with a shot of the artist and performers, followed with the flag and country name in a handwritten font with a background resembling the yellow, orange and red fire of the 2012 theme art. Various shots of Azerbaijan are used, with a caption displaying 'Azerbaijan' and underneath 'Land of ...' (e.g. Land of Abundance; Land of Poetry etc.). this is then followed by the name of a town or geographic feature, which shows the landscape and culture of the country. Some postcards focus on the host city of Baku with text changing to 'Baku' and underneath 'City of ...' (e.g. City of Jazz; City of Leisure etc.). ---> Are references number 29, 30 support this text too? I alredy told you, if they did you should put randomly in the end of some sentences in the paragraph. If don't WP:OR. :P — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the para below. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - Reference 30 supports both paragraphs more. I'll randomly duplicate the ref into the sentences too. Wesley☀Mouse 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket sale[edit]

  • Sorry, but too small to stay on its own. And non-notable too. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this section could be merged into the format. Wesley☀Mouse 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Fixed. Moved the small sentence, and incorporated it into the end paragraph of the location section. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National host broadcaster[edit]

Notable incidents[edit]

Human right concerns[edit]

  • "Tonight nobody could vote for their own country. But it is good to be able to vote. And it is good to have a choice. Good luck on your journey, Azerbaijan. Europe is watching you." ---> This is a quoted sentence, meaning that in the end it should have source. — Tomica (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 46 and 47 are situated at the end of the quotation sentence, and cover this. Should the sources be placed in a better position? Wesley☀Mouse 20:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - I've italicised the quotation, and removed the part that stated she (Anke Engelke) was the only person to have said the statement. This has allowed the refs 46 and 47 to follow directly after her quotation. Wesley☀Mouse 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tensions with Iran[edit]

Participating countries[edit]

  • This section together with the sub-section reads so bad. It's so rough. Why adding more background information on every country that returned and withdrawned. The same with the performers who returned to the contest. Understand what I want to say? — Tomica (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first section does seem to be repeating context from the lead, but also from the semi-final allocation draw section. I think that could ideally be removed, if it to help in improving a good article. As for the returning artists section, they use to be in a table format at the bottom of the page. But then it was decided a written prose would be better. Although again, would a user really want to know a particular artist(s) returned to the contest? These details would easily benefit better in the articles concerning those artists. Wesley☀Mouse 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, as a fan of ESC and Wikipedia reader I was always interesting in reading which artists returned in the contest, which year they participated, which placed finished and stuff. I really think that this section is needed. And also everything that is in the lead should be in the body of the article too. — Tomica (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an idea to improve the returning artists section. I can add details of their previous song entries, and the final placing in those particular contests. That should add more insight to a reader, as to what they sang, when they sang it, and where the song placed that year. Wesley☀Mouse 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good! That is what I mean actually ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better now, but why everything in one sentence? I mean there are too many colons. Btw I am not sure if the left picture should stay, they are flattering the text. — Tomica (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colons? I don't see any ":" in that section. There are comma's "," which are correctly placed grammatically. As for the section itself, It would either mean separating three very short sentences, or keeping them merged into one paragraph. This particular section alone, is a difficult one to expand, without making it sound repetitive. Any suggestions? Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant this (;). Btw the lead says that 42 countries took place, while the body of the article 43, both of them are unsourced and its like WP:OR. Source it. And for the section the sentences itself can stay in one paragraph. No need for separating them in respective paragraphs. — Tomica (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't see any (;) in the participating countries section either. Although there are some in the returning artists section. Technically the colon acts as a pause within a sentence. It allows the writer to merge smaller-worded sentences together, into one larger sentence. It is like having a full-stop (.) to stipulate an end of a sentence and a comma (,) to stipulate a break in a sentence. They are to indicate to a read (who may be reading it out loud) that they may pause for breath at that stage - that is the way I was taught at secondary school with colons, and when/where they should be used. The number of participating countries is a weird one too. There was 43 confirmed, and all the sources show 43. However, Armenia withdrew their application before the contest began, and therefore the number reduced to 42. There are sources to show Armenia withdrew, but none that read the new number of participants was 42. Wesley☀Mouse 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I meant the returning artist section. Lol. And yeah add the source that there were 43 artist originally with Armenia later withdrawing. And for the prose, the sentence is huge (talking about the one in the participating countries). Split it if you can. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A-ha that is quite simple to fix now upon reading your suggestions. There is a source used in the lead which shows 43 countries, and then there are sources currently in use which mention the Armenian withdrawal. Both can be re-used as refs in this section too; thus showing there were 43, and with Armenia withdrawal, mathematically makes it 42. Wesley☀Mouse 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Fixed sections per suggestion. Lead section added ref for Armenia withdrawal. Participating countries - Added ref to verify the number of countries confirmed. Returning artists - removed colons, and split section into 2 smaller paragraphs, for easier reading. Wesley☀Mouse 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

  • This section looks good. I like the tables, they are just fine. But the split votes from the jury and televoting should be removed. They are breaking the other tables. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the split vote tables too. As previously mentioned I was pretty sure a decision was reached on the project to no longer include those; although I'm struggling to locate the actual discussion regarding them. Those results don't really show anything, other than how the juries voted, and how the public voted. The actual results are a 50:50 combination of the two, and are already covered in the actual result tables. Wouldn't the split results not be classified as trivial? Wesley☀Mouse 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial definitely. So delete them. Strongly, there is no need for them to be there. — Tomica (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A decision regarding these tables appears to be nearing the end of discussion. Do we wait until that concludes before continuing the GA review, or are we able to proceed with this review and hope the split table discussion completes in the process? WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would suggest that the split results tables are excessive and should be removed. However, the tables alone do verify the context about 50:50 combined results, by showing their individual results as well as the combined version. Wesley☀Mouse 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that we can wait until there is a final consensus and then remove them. As I think the only other issue with this article are the references. The rest looks fine. — Tomica (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CT Cooper (talk · contribs) had commented on this WP:NOTSTATSBOOK policy, but had to cut his reply short. He is currently on a wikibreak (in Berlin) for the next few days. I'm 99.9% certain he will comment further and probably make a decision on his return. Only note 3 of Notstatsbook suggests too many tables are irrelevant on an article, unless they are covering vital parts of the article's subject, then they are permitted. So far I see them as excessive, but I can also see them as being vital addition to the article too. Wesley☀Mouse 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the split jury/televoting results are vital and provide evidence into the "50:50 combined results" statement which is also mentioned on the article, adding more verification into the content. As a compromise, the split results have been placed into collapsible tables, and situated next to their respective scoreboards, thus giving the reader the option to view them, whilst also keeping them hidden from view for those who don't wish to view them. Wesley☀Mouse 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from second reviewer[edit]

Second Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk)

I don't particularly like using someone else's review, So I'm going to quickly review the article myself: starting at Location working to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's perfectly fine, I'm just happy that we're getting somewhere again. God darn Olympics not half causing havoc with my personal schedules lol. Wesley Mouse 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you might change your mind, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still intend to do the lead last, but I needed to know what this article is about, and that information is given in the lead. Roughly two thirds of the lead was about Baku / Azerbaijan and one third was about the contest's "points". So I conclude that Baku / Azerbaijan is the most important part - if that is not the case, then the lead is not compliant with WP:Lead.
  • The host nation tends to be the most vital part of each contest, as there are other articles that go in more depth about voting history, participation history and history of the contests. Also it was the first time Baku, Azerbaijan hosted the contest, and with much controversy too, which is noted in sections of the article. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this point. Pyrotec (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • In general OK, but the prose and the paragraphs loop around a bit (see below).
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - The second two-sentence paragraph, i.e. "Azerbaijan's first Eurovision appearance was in 2008, and ....", seems to be the most importance as that is the reason Baku / Azerbaijan hosted it. So this paragraph, I suggest, aught to come first. It's also quite short so the current first paragraph could be appended to this paragraph, but I'm willing to consider alternatives.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - The final paragraph seems to be an afterthought or add-on (we've got the 25 Jan 2012 announcement and now we're going back to Aug 2011). It should appear in proper date sequence (or there about), so it aught to appear before the " ... Azad Azerbaijan TV (ATV) ..." paragraph.
  • This section had been written differently, but the previous reviewer had changed the wording slightly to its current format. Sections about the host nation/city are extracts from their respective articles (Baku/Azerbaijan). Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - Swapped paragraphs around, and appended any as required/suggested. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Format -
  • There is mention here of Eurovision Reference Group for the first time, who are they and what do the do (is there a wikilink, citation or other information about this group)?
  • There is no Wiki article for the reference group that I know of. But there are sources that I can add. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • televoting needs a wikilink, e.g. televoting.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - "SMS" or "SMS lines" (I'm not sure which) seems to be a technical term so it needs a wikilink or an explanation.
  • I'll fix those 2 sections now. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - I'm not sure what a "national jury" is, e.g. one for each nation, one member from each nation, an Azerbaijan national jury - its an unnecessarily vague statement.
  • Each participating country has a national jury which consists of 5 professional people of the music industry. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - What's the "Big Five", it is the same as the "automatic finalists" (six countries) mentioned by name in the follow subsection?
  • There is a small piece on the "Big Five" on the main Eurovision Song Contest article, would it help to wikilink that? Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - Added source for Reference Group. Wikilinked 'televoting' and 'SMS' Also linked national jury to Jury with expansive detail on who the jury were etc. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semi-final allocation draw -
  • Looks OK
    • Graphic design -
  • Is postcard the same as postcard, if so it needs a wikilink but the subsection fails to explain the purpose of the postcards - the design is explained but not the purpose?
  • Kind of yes, but not of the paper variety. They are visual postcards depicting various parts of the host country and/or host city. Kinda like a tourism publicity stunt, to entice new visitors to the region. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - Wikilinked postcard, and expanded to detail their intention purpose in the contest. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • National host broadcaster -
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - Three companies are named and wikilinked, but ITV is not explained or wikilinked.
  • I think ITV has been linked in the infobox. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't spot that it was İTV not ITC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed - İctimai Television had been wikilinked, and then later on ÍTV written, but nothing to explain that it was the abbreviation for the channel. I've now expanded the İctimai Television to include the abbreviation code. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was stated (later in the article) that there were 43 participants, but there is no explanation how countries other than the host nation saw the contest.
  • Not sure - Those are covered in the International Broadcasting and voting section further down the article. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable incidents -
    • Human rights concerns -
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) - "NGO" or its plural "NGOs" needs an explanation or wikilink.
  • I'll look into that one. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - Expanded NGO to stipulate its official name 'non-governmental organisation' and wikilinked the word. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tensions with Iran -
  • Looks OK
  • Participating countries -

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks OK
  • Thank you. I swiftly acted upon a redlink I noticed in that section. The song title "Samo ti" doesn't have an article, so I've created a redirect for it to Kalipoi's article for now so that the unsightly redlink turn a more pretty blue colour. Wesley Mouse 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Results & Other countries -
  • These two sections look OK
  • Other awards & International broadcasts and voting -
  • These two sections look OK
  • I noticed that Lebanon has a mention in the OGAE section. Just in case the general viewer wondered how Lebanon could participate in OGAE when they haven't participated in Eurovision, I have wikilinked the country to it's respective page Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest to allow further insight. Wesley Mouse 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise that mains points (see WP:Lead). It seems to fulfil the "introduction" part, but I'm still checking the "summary aspect".
  • Having done another quick read of the article, I'd suggest that the lead needs a bit more "meat", but not too much. After that (provided that the reviewer does not return) I'll award GA-status.
  • Ignoring the tables, the Lead is roughly balanced in the same proportion as the body of the article and 43 participating countries were mentioned, but another sentence or so on the human rights aspects and those nations who did not attend because of such concerns. Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll beef up the lead now while I have the time to concentrate on it. Wesley Mouse 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I add the beefed up version, I wanted to add it here first for an opinion in regards to whether I am heading the right direction or not.
  • "The Azerbaijani government invested larges sums of money into their first hosting of the contest, which was widely discussed by the Western media as a mitigation attempt to dislodge the misgivings over poor democracy and human rights record within the host nation. Several Human Rights groups protested against the stern crackdown of the freedom to express the governmental regime within Azerbaijan. Armenia withdrew from the contest due to security fears in regards to the continuous Nagorno-Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Despite wider concerns of the host nation's criticality over human rights and political issues, the contest went ahead as planned." Wesley Mouse 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is what you wish to say, its a bit too wordy. I'd suggest something like (but you are free to do it differently): "The government invested heavy, which the Western media viewed as an attempt to mitigate external concerns over its poor democratic and human rights record. Several Human Rights groups protested against the crackdown of the freedom to express (concerns with?) the government regime within Azerbaijan. Armenia withdrew from the contest due to security fears over the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Despite wider concerns of the host nation's criticality over human rights and political issues, the contest went ahead as planned." Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed Wesley Mouse - The way you've worded it is how I envisioned it in my head, but I couldn't get the words to cooperate in my brain. I'll add that version. Wesley Mouse 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny, I couldn't see the mistake when I wrote it, but I found the mistake after you added it. Enjoy your dedicated motorway lanes to the games, you now got a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    An interesting and informative article.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for a second while I just jump around with so much joy. YIPEEEE!!! Thank you, oh I feel so proud now. Now for the joy of the Olympic Motorway Lanes. I hope I don't get myself lost like some of the athletes' did earlier today. Wesley Mouse 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to you Wes, and to everyone else involved for writing, improving and overall contributing to the article. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AxG, a bit of faith and I knew the project could get a GA on it's first Eurovision by year article. And I repeat your gratitude to other editors who also helped in the article building process - teamwork barnstars all-round me thinks!. Here's to many more GA's to come (hopefully). Wesley Mouse 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012/GA1&oldid=1180926725"