Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave the initial comments within two days. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

The lead doesn't mention anything about the 2006 contest, remember it has to adequately summarise the whole article!
"the contest became the subject of a boycott by a group of Armenian musicians" - who in particular?
The 2006 contest section is looking very short. Can it be expanded at all?
"a statue located in Stepanakert, capital city of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" - missing a conjunction, a statue located in Stepanakert, the capital city of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
The first half of the 2012 section is unsourced. Things like "however, the Armenian Ministry of Defence later admitted that he was killed by a fellow Armenian soldier" need to be referenced

References

Ref 18 is dead and needs replacing. However apart from that the other references appear to be working fine and the citations are all in the correct places, so that would meet the GA criteria.

On hold

There are some concerns here which can be easily addressed, among them the copyediting issues, ref issues, and the size of the 2006 contest section. However if all of those issues are addressed, this should have no difficulty in passing the GAN. I'll put this on hold for seven days and once they have been sorted we can take another look. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "dead" reference site needed a new URL format. I did some other tweaks. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them. I see the improvements made and am happy to see the rework done to the 2006 section. I think this article now meets the GA criteria, albeit for a short review. The references are now fine, it is well written and has definitely improved over a day. Well done ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]