Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Key of life.jpg

Image:Key of life.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   While 3rei Sud Est similarly took back their entry "Vorbe care dor" - does "similarly" mean the song was also withdrawn for the Irish national selection? If not, you may want to rephrase this.

This was not the case. I replaced "similarly" with "also". Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. The results in each show of Selecția Națională were determined by a 50/50 combination of votes from a 12-member jury panel and a public televote. The six best-ranked entries from each semi-final were scheduled to advance to the final round. Did the final use the same 50/50 combination to determine the winner? It isn't clear from the text.

This was also the case for the final. I also consider it to be a "show", hence why I wrote it like that. Do you have an alternative way of formulating it, cause I don't have any idea. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. A jury panel was made up to rate the songs, consisting of Romanian music professionals and media personalities: ... The results were as follows: Are the results in the table following those for the jury panel alone or for the jury panel plus the viewer votes?

It should reflect the combined result; I added that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The first table is confusing because (a) it doesn't include a legend to indicate what the various colours in the row represent, and (b) because it includes a number of struck-through entries with no explanation. While the latter is evidently intended to mean a withdrawal or disqualification, that should be indicated in the table itself rather than relying on the reader to read the accompanying text.

Included that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I have my doubts about the licencing on some of these images but I guess we have to AGF on those.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Gatoclass: Any updates for this and the 2009 article? I'm not trying to rush your work, just wanting to make sure you did not forget about these two. Hope you have a great weekend. Greets Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, no I haven't forgotten about these two GANs, but I did rather recklessly open 10 GAN reviews while starting two GANs of my own, all in a futile last-minute attempt to rescue my Wikicup candidacy, and so it's going to take a little while to get around to all of them. Currently I've completed two reviews and one of my own GANs is just about done, so I'm getting through them, but it might take me a couple of weeks to get around to yours. If you don't want to wait that long though, I'm happy to stand aside and have you relist if that's what you want, it's entirely up to you. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I'm fine with waiting, I just wanted to make sure. Hope you're well, all the best of luck with your candidancy! Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Solved your comments thus far. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Any updates on this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, I am currently very busy in real life and have no time for editing wikipedia. However, at this stage it looks like I will be able to return to editing by about the end of the coming week, so you shouldn't have to wait much longer. Apologies once again for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I do think it's for both my and the reviewer's advantage to fail this nomination. The reviewer is too busy in real life to complete this, which is completely understandable. There may be someone else interested in picking this instead. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Am reviewing for the GAN October 2020 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• References in the lead are unnecessary

The few bits about Romania's Eurovision history and the award received by the song are too short to have their own sections, thus they are included in the lead with an accompanying reference. It is a legitimate way of structuring an article, I hope it's okay with you.

• "and the song indicted for plagiarism." - reviewed; indicted sounds like the song was charged with a crime!
• "and ultimately reached 20th place" - finished in 20th
• "dark-colored" - coloured
• "Prior to the 2008 contest, Romania had participated in the Eurovision Song Contest ten times since its first entry in 1994. Its highest placing in the contest had been third place, which the nation achieved in 2005. In 2007, Romania finished in 13th place." - None of this information is included in the article body. Consider including it into the main prose.

See above comment.

• "Among other accolades, "Pe-o margine de lume" won a Marcel Bezençon award in the composers' category." - This needs to be mentioned in the article body not just in the lead

See above comment.

Competing entries and shows

• "Romanian Television (TVR) organized" - organised
• "in favor of competing" - favour
• "to advance to the final round" - just final will suffice
• "All participants had been promoted by music videos that were broadcast by TVR." - state when TVR broadcast the music videos

This sadly isn't stated by the source for all songs.

• The first two columns of the main table of this section are missing scope="col"s per MOS:DTT

Semi-final 1

• Rock does not need to be linked
• "A jury panel was made up to rate the songs," - formed
• All columns in the table in this section must include scope="col" for MOS:DTT compliance

Semi-final 2

• "The jury panel was made up of Romanian music professionals and media personalities" - composed
• As with the semi-final 1 table, all columns should include scope="col" for MOS:DTT compliance

Final

• "the jury rating the entries presented during the event was partly replaced:" - replaced by whom?

The jury for the final (which is listed in the sentence above) is very similar to the one that reviewed the other semi-finals. However, the source does not explicitly state who the replaced jury members were.

• "'"Railroad, Railroad" performed in the final instead." - "Railroad, Railroad" was performed
• "with him also being unavailable for the date of the final," - {[xt|for the final}} was suffice here

Outcome and controversy

• The table at the bottom of this section could be made sortable like the others above it and have scope="col" added to all five columns

Promotion

• "ceoncerning ongoing promotional endeavours." - typo; should be written as concerning
• "was performed at the UK Eurovision Preview Party event held on 25 April" - the word in bold isn't required
• "held on 25 April in the London Scala club." - in London's Scala club.
• "One day later," - The following day,
• "They were eventually greeted by Antwerp's mayor" - consider including the exact name of Antwerp's mayor for clarity

At Eurovision

• "with commentary done by Leonard Miron." - the word indicated in bold is not needed
• "whose colors" - colours
• "and three female backing vocalists and a piano player were further hired for the show." - were employed for the performance.

Voting

• "Below is a breakdown of points awarded to Romania in the contest's first semi-final and Grand Final," - the word in bold isn't needed
• "The country awarded its 12 points to Greece in the contest's semi-final and final." - to Greece in both the semi-final and final.

References

• Be consistent how you write ESCToday. For example 9 references have it written as "ESCToday" whereas 3 are spelt as "ESC Today"
• References 29, 37, 44 and 45 are missing the authors of the respective articles

Will put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@MWright96: Thank you so much for your review! I have addressed your comments except where I left answers. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)