Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1

GA Review

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

What is a good article?

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[2]

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[5]
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ ^a ^b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead section too short. Prose doesn't flow and convey information clearly. There are sentences which are not saying much - "Fernandes also moved about on stage."

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

It appears to be OK.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

A lot of focus on clothing. Little production and critical response information

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Appears neutral

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

There are three images - all of the same performance. Limited caption information. One of the images, placed in the top right would be fine. Images of the other performers would be welcomed, but not essential.

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial inspection.

The lead section is short. The prose is choppy. It doesn't flow - it appears as though information has been placed in there bit by bit with no sense of editing or shaping. Detail seems rather trivial and excessive in places - such as the performers in the final, what clothes they were wearing, etc. There is a lack of genuine production details and no critical response. The article mainly consists of trivia details (colour of clothes worn, etc). There is a sense that there is little encyclopedic information, but much padding. The parent article Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest needs attention. The article was created on 10th Feb this year. There have been several editors. User:Sims2aholic8 is the main editor and nominator. SilkTork *^YES! 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns arising.

The article is not broad in coverage.
Unnecessary detail - or saying things that don't amount to much: "The five dancers moved about on stage, interacting with Fernandes at times. Fernandes also moved about on stage."
Clarity of presentation of information. This paragraph is fairly dense with a lot of numbers and the meanings can get lost: "The Portuguese song, composed by Andrej Babić and Carlos Coelho, was performed last in the second semi-final on May 22. It received a total of 120 points, coming second out of 19 competing countries and thus qualifying Portugal to the final, for the first time since the semi-final format was introduced in 2004. Performing 13th in the running order, Portugal received a total of 69 points and placed 13th in a field of 25 countries."
Sortable table not working. (That seems to be a general fault. Not sortable in other articles either)

Addressing concerns.

See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Quality_scale - look at the examples given for C-class, [1], B-class [2], and GA-class [3]. Also look at B Class criteria. Suggested sections: Background - in which a brief overall summary of Portugal's history of involvement in the competition is given, along with a link to Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest; Song - a brief summary of the song, linking to Senhora do mar (Negras águas); Performer - a brief summary of the performer, linking to Vânia Fernandes; Composer(s) - a brief summary of the composer(s), linking to Andrej Babić; Response - as detailed as possible summary of the public and critical response to the event. Some of the Reponse is already perhaps covered in the After Eurovision section, though I feel the focus is slightly different.
Sharpen prose and content so material is either pertinent and relevant or removed. Avoid the appearance of padding.
Reread any work just edited with "the general reader" in mind to see if the meaning is clear and easy to follow.
Read Help:Table.

Conclusion

Along with Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, this needs to be broader in coverage, and to tighten up on content to ensure it is encyclopedic in nature. Prose needs sharpening to ensure meaning is clear. The lead section will need to be expanded as new sections are added and article is expanded. Material is available to expand this article, and a notice has been placed on the project's talkpage. I have put this on hold to allow the development. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the work done to remove extraneous prose, however there seems to be a basic disagreement between this reviewer and the various editors of these "Country in the ESC year" articles as to what content is appropriate, and I envisage only prolonged dispute if I persist as the reviewer. I wouldn't feel right in passing this as a Good Article given my concerns about broad coverage, so the most appropriate approach would be for me to fail this and allow a GAR to take place to further discuss the issues. SilkTork *^YES! 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-2] In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]