Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melodifestivalen

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:23, 16 December 2007.

Melodifestivalen

previous FAC

Self-nomination: The first FAC failed because the article needed a copyedit and a reduction in images. Since then, Kenneth M Burke has copyedited the article (the second nom was withdrawn to give him time to finish) and I think the images have been brought down to a logical level. I believe the article is finally over the line. Chwe ch 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great article. Very comprehensive and well-cited. JHMM13^(Disc) 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Chwe ch 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Proper form is "support as nominator"~~ [- confusion, sorry]
- could you please request that "Kenneth M Burke" note his support as contributor or at least make a comment? I believe it would serve well as proof that he is satisfied with the article and done with copy-editing.
--Keerllston 10:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a message. Chwe ch 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment - I did copyedit the article and it is an article that I spent a lot of time on, but the article has undergone numerous changes since then. I believe that the changes were mainly clarifications where I did not have the knowledge of Melodifestivalen to clarify well enough. I do give my support as it is well written and interesting enough, but must also note that I left further suggestions on the talk page for the article, and that I do not know much about criteria for featured articles.--Kenneth M Burke (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the changes made to the article since the copyedit have been to improve the focus of the article, and to remove info that was probably too trivial, while keeping it comprehensive. The old history section (which has been moved to History of Melodifestivalen) included a lot of info that was better off in other sections (origins, winners, participation etc.) and quite a lot of info that wasn't worth keeping in the article at all. Anyway, thanks for your support :) Chwe ch 11:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck, I hope it does well. Ditto my support. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support pretty, nicely written, well-referenced
- 2 specific tone issues "was marred by mistakes" and "Critics were unkind to Malmkvist"
--Keerllston 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll take a look at those two issues now. Chwe ch 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~—But please fix sort out where your numeral/word boundary is: it's inconsistent (28 vs thirty-two)—see MOS. It's within reach, but needs a copy-edit before the prose is up to the required "professional" standard. Please don't just correct these samples from the lead; the whole text needs treatment by someone unfamiliar with it.

" forty-eight year history"—needs two hyphens, yes?
"sixteen top five placings"—needs one hyphen.
"... is chosen by regional juries and a public telephone vote. The competition's voting has evolved throughout its forty-eight year history. Central to the voting structure throughout the festival's history has been the awarding of points to songs." Remove "competition's". the forty-. "History ... history". The points thing ... well, is that unexpected? How else would it be done?
The introduction raised the limit ... not well worded.
The 2008 festival, not the "next" festival, which will date quickly.
Refs: journals typically require that foreign titles be translated (square brackets are often used for this, after the foreign-language title). Tony (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really fancy looking for another copyeditor; last time around it took over four months before any work was done. I'll give the article another run-through over the next few days (exams permitting) and see how I get on. Chwe ch 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can go through the article again if you like. I know it wasn't perfect when I was done, but I did dramatically improve the article. Of course, if you prefer to find another copyeditor, that is fine too. Just let me know. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going through it myself actually, but another pair of eyes can only be helpful, if you want to help you're more than welcome. Chwe ch 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I'll be around. Someone from LoCE should also proofread following a copyediting. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]Update: I've gone through the article from start to finish. There's a lot fixed, I have to say I surprised myself. I've left a message with Tony asking him to revisit his oppose. I was going to leave a request at WP:LOCE/R, but I wasn't sure where exactly to go with it: am I looking for a proofread or a copyedit? Chwe ch 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I would say it looks in pretty good shape (may want to double check citations, perhaps). I will comb through it with a more critical eye later today if you like, but I think that it's ready for a proofreader. I am sorry that I don't know how you might speed that process up with the LoCE. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a request. Chwe ch 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the article again. I am not sure whether it would be okay for me to stamp it as the proofreader, but I think that you would probably want someone else to do that anyway. I also left important notes to consider with the edits. I hope it helps. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chwe ch 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiery The caption accompanying the image of the official logo claims that it's "loosely based on the ljuskrona, the headpiece worn on St. Lucia's Day in Sweden". Is this really official or has someone merely been speculating? I personally have considerable difficulty in drawing connections between Lucia and Melodifestivalen. Peter ^Isotalo 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. I could have sworn I'd found a cite for that but it must have passed me by when I was running through the article. Chwe ch 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: what is the source/attribution of the two paragraphs of opinion in the "Musical styles and presentation" section?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean: it does look pretty barren alright. I struggled to find sources when it came to actually describing the music that is in the competition (save for the obvious "schlager" stuff that comes up everywhere). I'll see if I can find anything and, if not, I'll trim the section down to the cited quotes and criticism, like the equivalent section at the Eurovision article. Chwe ch 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of it may be common knowledge and may not need trimming, but I just wanted you to have a closer look. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.