Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA3

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I don't understood this sentence, "... as well as twice receiving 12 points, the highest marks each country can give, from Cyprus and Norway." (and?)--Cannibaloki 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes esctoday.com and oikotimes.com reliable sources?--Cannibaloki 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   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:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week.--Cannibaloki 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fail. The issues were not resolved.--Cannibaloki 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC found ESC Today to be reliable and I'll try to swap out the Oikotimes refs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some Oikotimes refs in there so this would have failed even if keeping to the RfC. For the record the RfC was closed fairly and legitimately by an impartial editor fully in line WP:RS. Given the controversy surrounding this dissent is perhaps inevitable, but I will not support attempts to re-open the debate yet again any time soon, there has been more than enough discussion on it and there are other things the project needs to focus on. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]