Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 31, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Greece may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll look this over. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Sources
2. Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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);
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- 2a.
checks out fine, we have a simple list of templated references in an appropriately titled section.
- Not a GA requirement, but ref #19 "Six on Stage - Die for You" could do with the template filling out to add the publisher details, though note my query below.
- 2b. some queries below. Note that I'm not necessarily saying they don't meet WP:RS, but the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that they do:
- 2c. all significant information is sourced. Spotchecks carried out on three facts:
- "Following this result, Greece was relegated from participation in 1999 contest" – listed source backs this up: "Due to their lower average scores over the previous five contests, Finland, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Romania and Switzerland stayed at home."
- "At the close of voting, it had received 147 points, placing third, behind winners Estonia and host country Denmark." – listed source backs this up in a sortable table.
- "ERT president George Katsaros then reiterated that Antique were the winners because "they take more votes from any other and the voters want them"." – listed source includes the quote.
- 2d. although a number of the sources are foreign-language, and so can't be checked, enough of the sources are English-language to carry out a reasonable survey. Sources checked:
- Ref #2, "Greece shuts down public broadcaster ERT": no issues.
- Ref #6, "The end of a decade: Stockholm 2000": no issues.
- Ref #16, "Rules of the Eurovision Song Contest 2001": no issues.
Images
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- 6a. both images have appropriate license templates, all okay.
- 6b. both images are relevant and suitably captioned.
- Not a GA requirement, but consider adding alt text for the images.
Prose
1. Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- 1a. some points below:
- Consider linking "in 1977", "in 1992" and "in 1998" to the relevant articles on the contest (or Greek participation) for those years.
- "Nama with the song "Tha gyrno" (Θα γυρνώ) later withdrew.." I struggled with this at first. Some commas might help: "Nama, with the song "Tha gyrno" (Θα γυρνώ), later withdrew.."
- "After the first round consisting of all nine candidate entries, jury.." Again, an extra comma would help: "After the first round, consisting of all nine candidate entries, jury.."
- "In response, Paparizou remarked.." Use her full name, and explain who she is, on this first mention of her in the prose.
- The same for Panagiotidis.
- "..when Paparizou performing as a solo artist, won the contest." This doesn't quite sound right to me. Maybe try either more commas again: "when Paparizou, performing as a solo artist, won the contest." or "..when Paparizou performed as a solo artist, and won the contest."
- 1b. required MOS sections are adhered to, but some non-necessary notes below:
- "135 songs were submitted.." Per MOS:NUM, don't start a sentence with a number. (Not a GA requirement.)
- The tables meet the requirements of MOS:EMBED, but consider adding row and column scopes per MOS:DTT to improve accessibility. (Not a GA requirement.)
- "..of 7-12 May.." Per MOS:DASH, this should be an endash. (Not a GA requirement.)
- "..from 1-8.." Again, per MOS:DASH, this should be an endash. (Not a GA requirement.)
3. Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- 3a. No obvious gaps.
- 3b. Does not go into excessive detail.
- 4. No issues.
- 5. No issues.
Overall, a nice little article that deals with the topic well. I'll stick this on hold for you to deal with the points raised above, but there's nothing too much, I don't think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Harrias: thanks for the review! I've made the changes you suggested. I took a look at those 3 refs you flagged and ended up removing them and rewriting those sections a bit. Please let me know if there's anything I missed. Grk1011 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 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.