Talk:San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this; hopefully you are successful in your goal to create a GT! --K. Peake 11:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Infobox looks good!
Target Serhat to Serhat (singer)
Target ballad to Sentimental ballad
Wikilink disco
"in Europe in" → "across Europe in"
Remove wikilink on Eurovision Song Contest

Done

Background

"to the grand final, however in" → "for the grand final; however, in"
[1] should be invoked at the end of the para instead of separately for the last two sentences since it backs up both of them
Allessandro Capicchioni → Alessandro Capicchioni
"By 26 November," → "By 26 November 2015,"

Done

Before Eurovision

Internal selection

Target SMRTV to San Marino RTV on the img text
"and Sammarinese Head of Delegation Alessandro Capicchioni were" → "and Capicchioni were"
The previous compositions are not directly mentioned, though 9 does say the artists have previous experience
The Piste Rouge Studios and Guy Waku arrangement are not sourced, even though the city is and the other arranger

Both of the above are in the J. Weaver ESCToday source. I've moved it up to the middle. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the info about composers not having met from 9

Thanks for pointing this out! Let me know if you approve of the wording. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Song changes

Neither of the sources say anything about the previous version being a ballad so add [15] in this para as well as the other, but target to Sentimental ballad
Wikilink disco
Remove target on EP
Shouldn't you mention it being cut down to a three-minute edit?
Wiwibloggs should not be italicised

Done

Promotion

"presentation on 9 March 2015." → "presentation on 9 March 2016."
"was filmed in Paris." → "was filmed in Paris with a team of 37 people." per the source
"He appeared on" → "For the tour, he appeared on"
Target TVM to Television Malta
"On 11 May," → "On 11 May 2016,"
Wikilink Hard Rock Cafe
Wikilink Stockholm
"by fifteen participants of" → "by 15 participants of" per MOS:NUM

Done

At Eurovision

Remove wikilink on Stockholm
You have not added the appropriate ref after the Eurovision rules
"from previous contests with" → "from previous contests, with"
Target first semi-final to Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Semi-final 1
"to perform in position 8," → "to perform in position eight," per MOS:NUM
The announcement from Irol MC is not mentioned by [26]

Done

Semi-final

Img looks good!
"on 9 and 10 May." → "on 9 and 10 May 2016."
"performing at a microphone stand" the source says he performed at floor level
"perform a choreographed routine" → "delivered a choreographed routine"

Done

Voting

Where is the part about no relation being allowed sourced?

It said "connection", so I changed the wording to be more precise. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and grand final" → "and the grand final"

Done

Points awarded to San Marino

Good

Points awarded by San Marino

Good

Detailed voting results

[34][33] should be put in numerical order

Done

References

Copyvio score looks a bit too high at 43.2%; trim the Wiwibloggs quote to fix this

Trimmed the quote. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 9

Done

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but this was the first time ever one of your articles had a copyvio issue, weirdly. --K. Peake 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it's because it's a direct quote from the article and a couple sentences long. It's attributed as such, so I believe that is allowed. It's not copying someone's "work". I'll take a look at the rest of the items tomorrow. Grk1011 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grk1011 Will be great to see your full-on response soon, but I thought I'd issue a statement about the above issue while it's most relevant. WP:OVERQUOTE says, "Do not overquote from sources, that is have too many direct quotations or excerpts that are too long." This is somewhat of an excerpt, so cut the amount of quoting or maybe paraphrase. --K. Peake 07:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all set! Let me know if there is anything else that I may have missed. Grk1011 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grk1011 I do approve of your wording for the info about them not having met and for future reference, a recommendation from me would be to make sure anything relevant from sources is cited to pass the broadness criterion properly. It is also interesting to see you mark the sections as done separately; nice response method, I would recommend doing that again in the future! ✓ Pass now though, I do not see any further issues! --K. Peake 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do all of the edits in one sitting so I don't have trouble tracking my progress, but this one required it to be spaced out given my work load. I'll keep that in mind for future reviews! Grk1011 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]