This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
67 artists are in bold, while only 66 qualified and I can't manage to find the one that shouldn't be. Also, the link to the "convocations" has already been changed so it an archive may be needed. Thank you Yoyo360 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Grk1011 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @The C of E: checking in just in case you forgot about this. No rush. Grk1011 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any links for the writers in the opening paragraph?
Added two interlanguage links. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we link the years for the 3 consecutive Austrian performances, for consistency
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any subsequent reasons why the emerging acts were absent?
None of the available sources explained why. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any subsequent punishment for the jury scandal beyond using aggregate scores?
It seems the aggregate scores were the only penalty based on the available sources. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is ESCToday a print source? IF not, it shouldn't be in WP:ITALICS
Same for Eurovoix
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple WP:BLUE links for SMRTV in the references
This is ok per MOS:REPEATLINK. Citations are not read in order of appearance. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 17, 37 and 54, i'm not sure WikiBlogs is an WP:RS
This is reliable source that just so happens to have blog in its name. The site lists their editorial policies, key staff and their credentials, significance in the field, etc. [1], [2]. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 55, Out is a print source and should be italicised
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 56, Metro is considered generally unreliable under WP:RSP
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011: It looks more or less ready, just needs the above issues addressed and it should be ready. Feel free to ping me once they are done. Apologies for the delay. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Thank you for the review! I believe I've made all the requested edits, with comments above. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}