Talk:American Song Contest/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

---

Reviewer: Onegreatjoke (talk · contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I've decided to review your nomination after seeing that it was the oldest nomination without a review. Hopefully I don't procrastinate doing this. Comments should begin tomorrow. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done. Can't find much wrong with this other than what I've listed. Putting on hold. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: in case you missed this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

Prose

Intro

• "the top three songs determined by a public vote and top two determined by a jury panel" Should it be the top two?

Format

• "The American Song Contest puts artists head-to-head against other representatives in a series of qualiying rounds" Should be Qualifying.
• "Acts could consist of solo artists, duos, bands or a DJ." add comma after bands.
• "The final results were presented in Eurovision style, with each jury member awarding their maximum 12 points then adding in the viewers' points." should it be "and then"?

Background

• "There were plans to develop an US version of Eurovision as early as 2006" should it be "a US version"

Semi-finals

• "Ten performers will advance in the grand final on May 9" should turn in into to to make it past tense .
• "On April 19, NBC has confirmed the first 11 semi-finalists who will compete on the first semi-final" Get rid of has, replace on with in.

That's all for a first check! Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Verification

• "In an interview with BBC Breakfast in 2020, Cheryl Baker (member of the winning act in the 1981 Eurovision) opined that the competition will not translate well in the U.S., adding that the country "has got a long way to go to get the kitsch, the cheese, and the fun element" of the contest. Baker also suggested that the U.S. should bring a representative to Eurovision instead." Would like an inline citation for this.
• what makes Wiwibloggs a reliable source?

Other than that sources look good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Broadness

• Should more information on the rounds be included? Also, is there more information you can add to the cancellation section?

that's all for broadness! Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Ok, so while there's no cut and dry copyright, it kind of seems like there's some close paraphrasing. for example "A song from the film, "Husavik", was nominated for Best Original Song at the 93rd Academy Awards" is very close to what states it in the cited. So a general rewrite could be nice. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onegreatjoke: thank you for the review! I believe I addressed your concerns. Unfortunately there's not much about the cancelation out there. For Wiwibloggs, it 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]. Of note is that the editor is also interviewed as part of that BBC interview with Cheryl Baker, so he's also an expert in the subject. Grk1011 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: At reception it says "The concept of producing a American version of Eurovision was initially met with lukewarm reactions." when it should be "an". If you can fix that then i'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onegreatjoke: done! Grk1011 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:44, 20 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.