Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest/GA1

GA Review

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

Hey everyone. I'm Nikkimaria, and I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Feel free to add any questions, concerns or comments you may have to my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting

The "Breakdown of contests" section needs a different name. As it mostly shows winners as opposed to overall scores/standings, the section heading should reflect this. ✔ Changed it to "Winning entries". Is this an appropriate title? I struggled a bit on this one!

Sounds fine to me.

Some template issues in the table "Countries making its windrawn" (as well as a title typo) ✔
Watch for typos in general: I noticed a few (like "emergered" for "emerged" and "doctumentary" for "documentary" in history) ✔

Pretty good, but I notice that there is now a mix of American and British English in the article (for example, "totaled" is American while "favourite" is British). Consistency is preferred throughout the article per WP:ENGVAR (and, given the Euro-centricity of the subject, I would suggest British English). ✔ After copying the whole article into a word processor with a UK dictionary, the only other one I could see was "modeled" which has now been changed.

Make sure that quoted passages are identical to the source that they were taken from (barring ellipses or other special circumstances). I noticed that the quote from EBU in the first paragraph of "Format" introduced a grammatical error not present in the source. ✔
Per WP:MOS, times should be formatted hour:minute as opposed to hourminute (ex. 8:30 instead of 830) ✔
Check grammar in "Entry restrictions". Could you specify on this one because I wasn't sure on what needed changing, though a semi-colon has been changed into a comma.

"Performers must be a national" - "national" needs to be plural to agree with "performers" ✔
"The rule stating that performers also must not have previously released music commercially was active from 2003 to 2006 and was dropped in 2007 thus allowing already experienced singers and bands in the competition" - sentence is too long to not have a break in speech (a comma or something). There are a couple other sentences in the article that have this issue too. ✔ I've gone through and have broken up 2 or 3 other sentenses as well.

Consider linking the term "national" to some article about citizenship or immigration status for clarity. ✔ I think I've linked to the correct articles but I had difficulties trying to work out which articles would be most appropriate to link it to.

The first link is great, but the second doesn't quite fit. I'm not absolutely sure what they're talking about, but something like permanent residency would be closer. ✔

Check consistency of the term "children-performers" versus "child-performers" or simply "performers" throughout the article. ✔ The term "performers" is now used throughout the article.
In "Participation", clarify the sentence "Seven countries have been represented in every contest" to differentiate between "At least seven have participated each year" versus "Seven have competed every year", as the current wording is unclear. ✔

Accuracy and verifiability

Should cite "Between 2003 and 2005 viewers had around 10 minutes to vote after all the songs had been performed" ✔
Reference for program times and point system? ✔ The only ref I could find about the programme time was the 2006 rules (though it's in GMT). Would this be enough? I know for a fact all 6 contests have been on between 20:15 and 22:30 but I just cannot find the proof!

Sorry, that could only be used as a reference for 2006. If you can't find the proof, you can't state it as a fact.

Reference "the 2006 contest was a notable exception" ✔
Reference decline of West + rise of East I've removed this sentense as it's been very, very difficult to find a reference for it. Also would it be classed as original research?

It wouldn't be OR if it had a source, but since it doesn't, technically yes.

Reference for details in tables ✔
Should use English sources wherever possible. Non-English sources should have their language noted (some of the references do this, but other don't) ✔
Reference 23 has a broken link ✔ Replaced
YouTube videos that are not from an official channel belonging to a reliable source do not meet WP:RS - therefore, refs 27, 28, 29, 30 are not valid. Other sources should be found or the unsourced information should be removed. ✔

Some inconsistencies in the refs: some use "ESCToday" while others use "ESC Today", and 7 neither links nor italicizes IMDB. ✔

Broad

No issues noted.

Neutral

You might want to take a look at WP:WTA. Words like "notably" or "plagued" should not be used unless cited as someone's opinion or qualified. ✔
A multinational competition cannot possibly be a "stress-free environment". Either make that phrase a quote or reword it. ✔ Replaced it with a quote.

Stable

No issues noted.

Images

The first image is the now-defunct logo. If possible, you might substitute the current logo there and put this one in the history section. ✔ Replaced it with last contest's logo, I can't find the generic version of the modern logo. The old one's in the History section now.

You can either crop the "Junior Eurovision" out of this picture, as someone did with the old logo, or you can update it when the new logo appears and every time thereafter. I'm clueless on cropping so I'll do as you say and the 2008 logo will be eventually be replaced with the 2009 logo, 2010 etc; unless someone else does the crop at some point in the future.

That logo also has an issue with attribution. The source listed for the image is "cut from the 2004 logo", but the actual source (company/website/creator) is not cited, and I feel that per Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image it should have that information. ✔ I think I've put the correct information in. I'm not totally clued up on image rationales (even with the guide!).

Yes, it's fine now (although I'm no expert either)

In addition to this there have been some minor changes to the way the references are formatted, nothing major. Big thanks to Nikkimaria for taking on this article! --gottago (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some final minor changes to deal with, and this article will be ready for GA status. Congratulations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I think that's about it! Anything else? --gottago (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]