Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/1

Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Kept. There were several GA issues and some disagreement on how to deal with them, but a compromise structure was found, retaining the basic approach of the main editors, while also treating the key elements of the topic in an encyclopedic way. Nice work: hopefully this will be a useful example for the genre of the article. Geometry guy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2 and Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1

I started an individual review and the two main contributors are disagreeing with my assessments, so it seems appropriate to bring it to the community. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about article

My main concern is regarding broad coverage. There is a lack of detail and coverage regarding what might be seen as basic aspects of the topic. The song that was selected ("Secret Combination") is mentioned by name in the lead, and then in a section named "Kalomoira" with this description: "an R&B style upbeat song with a Greek feel composed by Konstantinos Pantzis with lyrics by Poseidonas Giannopoulos". And then "The song had an "American production" feel to it." (sourced to an interview with the composer on esctoday.com)

There is no further information on the song or composer, even though in the same interview there is more information that could be included about the song and the composer such as that he had worked with the singer on her previous two albums, this is his first Eurovision song, and that "there is darbuka (toumberleki) but not the rhythm like we know it. It has a more western rhythm with Greek sounds. It is darbuka with Mediterranean sounds."

We learn that the performer is called Kalomoira, that she "appeared on stage in a short JLO dress", and that the "four dancers held her up on top of themselves while she was laying down flat. Later she came down, and started dancing with them". However, I think the general reader might like to know who she is - if she known nationally or internationally? - is she Greek? - is she popular? - has she any experience of the competition? - etc.

I also have concerns about unnecessary detail when the article goes into fan gossip about the singer's clothes, and tells that after "a brief break, she traveled to Turkey, arriving on April 10, where she posed for pictures, gave interviews to the local media, and went shopping through the old town, where the Turkish media followed her."

My feeling is that the focus of the article should be less on what might be seen as fan details, and rather more on encyclopedic details.

I also have concerns about the quality of the writing. It is quite choppy in places, and is so bitty and condensed that the meaning is not always clear. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wider issues

This article is being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision as a template example of what to aim for.

There have been concerns about the notability of these topics - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006. I feel that the topics are worthwhile, and are popular and hold a wide cultural interest. However, given the concerns that this topic was an intersection too far, and that main encyclopedic information on this topic could be contained in the two main articles for each topic (in this case Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest), it would do well to pay close attention to the formatting of these articles. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment comments and recommendations

• Comment. I agree with most of SilkTork's concerns. The article is disorganised and confusing, goes into unencyclopedic detail in some places, and fails to establish context in others. The lead not only fails to summarise the article, it also fails to define the subject in the first sentence. Prose disasters are abundant:

  "ERT originally proposed to Elli Kokkinou internally". I wish the couple a happy internal marriage.

  "Kalomoira and Kostas Martakis' songs for the national final were leaked on the internet." I hope no fuses were blown. ["leaked" is rather too journalistic for an encyclopedia and allegations of wrongdoing need very reliable sources.]

  "He started off his song sitting down, later getting up and dancing. During the middle part of his song, he jumped up on a platform, and a big prop opened up on stage in the shape of the letter V with him in the middle. The lights then went to him with smoke machines on during a break, while his dancers started singing as backing vocalists with microphones facing him." [The fact that he sat down, stood up, danced, or jumped on a platform during his performance is unencyclopedic.]

  "Although Greece was granted a place in the 2008 final because of Sarbel's seventh place finish at the Eurovision Song Contest 2007, it had to compete in a semi-final in 2008 because the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) decided to regulate all countries except the Big 4, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, to pass through a semi-final." [Verbose and confusing, and "to regulate... to pass" is ungrammatical.]

  "The EBU split up countries with a friendly voting history into two different semi-finals, to give a better chance for other countries to win." (Also interpretation is uncited.) [Verbose; "split up" implies the countries were together before, "different" adds nothing.]

  "At that same moment of the book opening, she changed her outfit converting it from a pink dress into a silver mini skirt." Harry Potter eat your heart out. ["At that same moment" is verbose, "changed" and "converting" is repetition. Presumably she actually took off the pink dress to reveal a silver miniskirt underneath. If so, say so.]

These examples illustrate several of the issues raised. Geometry guy 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see some of your points, but some of your comments are not too helpful. You list sentences, and either don't list what is wrong with them, or post sarcastic comments at the end (I don't think this is a place for jokes), some of which I don't get. Some of the things you mentioned are a matter of preference. Each user can write a sentence a ton of different ways. I don't think that it detracts from its encyclopedic purposes, just because you would write it a different way. The original reason for the article going up for community reassessment was because of changes SilkTork proposed on the GA2 talk, that don't really work for each country since each country's selection process is different. Like for example a section on "Producers" which is irrelevant to Greece in ESC 2008. But that is not mentioned on this talk. Greekboy (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my (three) poor attempts at humor were unhelpful or offensive. I have added additional comments in square brackets about the prose style to all but the first example. The first two sentences of the body of the article are very disorienting. Why "chose to hold"? Why "again"? I suggest reordering the paragraph so that previous practices come first. However, it isn't the job of GAR to fix every sentence. I agree that a sentence can be written in many ways, but good prose is concise and clear. The above prose is verbose and confusing.

I also agree with you that there is no reason why articles like this should all follow the same pattern, but I don't see that as the main concern raised by SilkTork. Geometry guy 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually "following the same pattern" was one of the issues raised when Silktork decided to reassess all current GA articles of this type. He felt like there should be more information taken from other articles to make the page more complete which I disagree with. It is one of the reasons why there is wikilinking - so someone can go to another page that focuses more on that topic. Silktork feels that there should be subsections about the song, artist, composer etc, separate from the prose explaining each, which I feel will break up the article. He used Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 as an example. The article to me is not really a list of blurbs about difference aspects of Greece's participation, but more of a summary written day by day from Greece's decision to enter to the aftermath. After reading it through again after a few months I did realize some deficiencies in the prose and some more explaining that could addressed, but I see no problem with the overall format and content of the article. Everything is sourced (if its not I can find one in a few seconds) and the article is not biased or "fanish". The description of the performances could be better phrased instead of he stood up, sat down, danced a little, etc, but that is what happened its not like that article reads "she was the best of the night" or anything like that. The goal is to make the article as complete as possible, not break it up with little subsections about the past that doesn't affect the current year of the article. Important details can be and are to an extent included when necessary and relevant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the song that went through to Eurovision gets little more coverage than the two which didn't. Summary style is completely unused. Geometry guy 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is to keep in mind that this is not the song's page. It would not be necessary to get into tiny details about the song when the process of the song getting to and its outcome at the contest is what the article is about in general. The other songs deserve just as much coverage in that section since it is about the selection process not the song, anything of further detail belongs on the song's separate page. The purpose of this page is not to be a place to look to find more information about the participant, the song etc, its about the country's participation. Should we include a subsection about the history of Greece and the contest overall too because that's the type of additions I feel I am being told to add. I'm not against adding some basic relevant background info, but I am against adding overly detailed irrelevant background information for things that have their own pages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The other songs do indeed deserve as much coverage in that section, and that exposes the poor organisation of the article. At a structural level, the article is proseline. It tells the story like a news source, not an encyclopedia. Try to write the article as if you were looking back on events ten years from now. You would spend more time discussing the song which entered the event, right? The focus of the country's participation was at Eurovision, and concerns the song which was actually sung there, right? Geometry guy 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. If you do infact look back at the contest from the 90's on other online sites that provide a history section, there is detail about the selection process and the other songs. The other songs are just as important to the countries participation as is the song picked. I myself would like to find information about the other songs too in 10 years. It's not like there is currently no information on the song actually picked. In fact there is a whole page on it. The page is about their participation. The song selection and the other competing songs are also a part of their participation. Greekboy (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we are digressing. The point is whether the article is a GA or not which more than one editor agrees it is which is why it was listed in the first place. In fact, over the past few months, it has only improved and become more complete. I respect the Silktork's opinion of the article, but I feel like we are all being put into a situation where Silktork believes such and such must happen or the article cannot be a GA which is not true. The purpose and format of the article is not determined solely by the wishes of one user who threatens to de-GA it. I think we need more opinions and everyone needs to take a look at what the purpose and scope of each article related to this one is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of belief, but valid argument against the good article criteria. SilkTork has argued cogently that the article does not meet the criteria. Instead of delisting, SilkTork has generously brought the article to community review. So far no uninvolved editor has disagreed with his assessment. So far, I am pretty much bound to close this discussion as delist, but we need to wait a bit longer before making the final decision. Maybe an uninvolved editor will expose some flaws in SilkTork's reassessment. Geometry guy 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've lost site of exactly what the problem seems to be. Is it that he wants more background info because we added some, more can be added, or is it the fact that he feels we need historical subsections of related people? The latter, what I assume to be his argument, is not a valid reason to delist. The article does in fact focus entirely on encyclopedia details and I wait for a reason why a sourced description of her promotional tour is a "fan detail".

The "wider issues" argument is misleading since when those articles were nominated for deletion when they were stubs saying the country participated and consisted mostly of the entrants biography. [1] [2] All of the deletion comments pertain to the page in that condition and are irrelevant today. The reason they were kept was so they could be like this one. There is no way that the information could ever be only on the country and year page.

I also think the listing GA reviewer should give his opinion before the discussion is closed as there was a reason why he listed it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion can be summarised as - 2 GA reviewers feel that the article needs more details about the main song and the composer and other basic facts in order to meet "broad coverage"; 2 main contributors feel that their aim for the structure and focus of the articles would not allow for such "broad coverage". On that point it would be fair to say that the contributors may structure the articles in the way they feel best serves the topic, but that unless the articles comply with GA criteria they will not pass GA. In addition, there is disagreement about focus and organisation. However, there is mutual concern about the quality of the writing which the contributors are willing to address.

Given that there are concerns about the article, and that the contributors are unwilling to make the adjustments requested to bring the article up to GA standards, it would indicate a delisting on the grounds that the article is contentious. However, it would be valuable if another GA reviewer could give an opinion on this matter, as it does impact on the other "FOO in the Eurovision Song Contest YEAR" articles as they carry the same structure and approach as this one. SilkTork *^YES! 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we are not seeing eye to eye here. The article already lists "basic" facts on the participation. It just may be lacking some background information (Which is readily available by wiki-linking). And with all due respect, I did not see Geometry guy raise the same exact concerns you raised. His concerns had to do more with the writing style of the article rather than additional composer and main song information. Regardless though, throughout this discussion there have been changes and additions made to the article that I feel are a fair compromise, that do not go into excessive un-necessary detail, but do provide basic background information. You can see the extent of the changes at [3], which is still a work in progress. Anyway, I feel like we should make a compromise on this, especially since there is currently a consensus on the current format by wikiproject editors, as well as the fact that not every year can follow the same pattern (as Geometry guy agrees) because of different circumstances. With all due respect again, I don't think that it must be done only your way when that is not the case. Greekboy (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, I believe that the article is not about the song, or the artist, or the country's participation in Eurovision, it is about what the country did to select their entry for the Eurovision Song Contest for that year. Of course there does need to be some detail about the songs or the artists, but just about a sentence or two to explain them. No one song or artist is as important as another, even though one song came out the winner and went to Eurovision. I also believe that the article has a broad coverage. I don't really see how the prose is choppy or how there is a lack of detail. The main goal of the article is explain what happened for that country in their Eurovision "journey". There are other articles for this information, articles on information based solely on the singer or the song or the producer or the songwriter or any number of things that can be related to the article. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, the article needs to be moved. The title is "Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008". When I read such an article, I expect to read an article about, well, Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest in 2008. If the article is about the "journey", then it needs a title like "Selection of Greece's 2008 entry for the Eurovision Song Contest". Geometry guy 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also about the promotion, the performance at the contest, the aftermath etc; the title is very appropriate. The problem is how much background info from related articles should be copied and pasted in. Now I've added a considerable amount without breaking the flow of the article and I think that solves the problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and do not recommend moving the article, but ensuring instead that the article reflects the title, not the need to tell a story about a journey. Encyclopedias don't generally do that. Geometry guy 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) I looked over the article again. The addition of a "background" section is a great improvement (summary style, hoorah!), which breaks the jolt that there was from the lead to the first section. The article is getting close to the point where I would be willing to dive in and copyedit it, rather than complain testily about the prose :-). I still think it needs a separate section on the song, between the "National final" section (which could be renamed "Selection process", perhaps with "National final" as a subsection) and the "Promotion" section: that actually would improve the flow by discussing what was promoted! If the structure is looking good by the weekend, I'll try to find time to copyedit. Geometry guy 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, so I can understand a bit better. What information would be added in this song section that is not already in the article? I am working on the article in a sandbox, but I can't seem to understand what other information could be added that isnt already in the article and relevant. If you take a look at the song page Secret Combination (song) mostly all of the information on it is already spread onto the Greece in ESC 2008 page. Thanks. Greekboy (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a pertinent question, perhaps the Eurovision material in Secret Combination (song) is better off in the Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. The two articles are inter-related, so there will be some cross-over of material. SilkTork *^YES! 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the lead section of the article to readjust the focus. The information is now organised so that the most important information comes first. If you compare you'll see that in the new version the song that was entered comes early on, and the result is also in the first sentence. The next important information is who performed and wrote the song. The selection process is then mentioned, followed by the performance and a comment on the performance, and then what happened with the song, and finally, putting this years performance in context of previous years. That, in a nutshell, is the information that a reader might wish for. Then sections in the main body should expand upon each of these points. The order in which the sections go is not necessarily chronological, but that is an option. Rather than chronological it might be appropriate to have a general background section - which there is - and then a section on the Eurovision final, as that is the important aspect. The selection process is secondary to the selection process, and so that can come later in the structure. My personal feeling is that a section on the song itself should come before the selection process. My thinking on that is that the song is more known internationally than the selection process which was broadcast only in Greece. It is also a more pertinent question - "What was the Greek entry in 2008?" than "How did Greece select the 2008 entry?" - I'd like to see both questions answered, but in the appropriate and natural order.

My view is that the more I look at these articles the more work I see needs doing. As there isn't an agreement on how to structure and present them, it might be better to delist this and the others, and allow the contributors - in collaboration/consultation with myself and/or Geometry guy - to work on the articles so that there is some consensus on how they should be presented and what information they should contain. My feeling is that a period of work on the articles would benefit the articles, the contributors, the GA process, the Eurovision Song Project and Wikipedia as a whole. Accepting these as GA when there are so many concerns would benefit nobody.

I don't wish to delist and walk away. But I would like to feel that we could work together. If it is felt that my approach to the articles is more destructive than helpful, then I would not get involved. Regards as always SilkTork *^YES! 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So um, its been a few days. Geometry guy did you want to get in and copy-edit now? Me and Greekboy are pretty much done I think unless there are any more big problems left that we forgot. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do at least the lead and background sections soon, but I agree with SilkTork's post above and you haven't commented on it. I will shortly close the GAR as delist. Geometry guy 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So wait. Let me get this straight. Basically all the changes to the article have been made as requested, but yet it will be de-listed because there is no agreement on the structure of these type of articles --- which you agreed are not necessary to follow the same pattern, as each country and year is different. I am a little lost here now. You guys seem to be talking in circles about the issues. The issue raised by SilkTork was that there was not enough broad coverage, which was fixed, but also that there isn't enough song information in the article. When I pointed out that almost all the information about the song is already in the article (from the song's article), he didn't really give a definite response on that issue. Now you say to delist because more work needs to be done, but yet neither SilkTork or you jump in to do that work, or at least offer an explanation of what exact work needs to be done to keep it at GA. Greekboy (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have had four days to respond to SilkTork's post, but did nothing. Then as soon as I comment, you jump down my throat. Thanks. SilkTork was the reassessor, and the only point where I have disagreed with him is that these articles do not all need to have the same structure. I agree with his comments on this particular article, and since no other uninvolved editor has commented, the only possible outcome at the moment is delist. Geometry guy 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I "jumped down your throat". I just saw the talk in my watch list today. I have not been very active on Wikipedia the last couple of days, which you can see from my contributions. I still don't really get what SilkTork's suggestions are for the article. I see that he mentions that the selection was only broadcast in Greece, which is NOT the case. It was broadcast by the EBU on their official site, as well as other foreign broadcasters as in previous years. So that would give the selection itself importance as well. The only other real thing I see in his comment is the order of the sections, which like he said, is an opinion. That shouldn't hold back a GA. From what I see on Wikipedia:Good article criteria, its well written, its verifiable, it now has broad coverage, it's neutral, its stable, and it's illustrated by images. The layout complies with Wikipedia:Layout, so I don't see what the real problem is. I mean sorry if I seem to not get it, but I honestly don't get what the real problem is here. Greekboy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am confused now. I thought I was done since you said a few days ago that it was near the point where you would be willing to copy-edit it since we had added the background section. Your only complaint as of then seemed to be your request for a song section. So we then renamed the "artist" section as the song titles as that is a better fit, which also means that a song section was added, no? The "promotion" section was renamed "promotion of selected entry" and made a subsection of a new larger section "before eurovision" which includes "national final" renamed "selection process". We have addressed every issue in some way, if not exactly to your liking. What in particular makes this article fail GA besides some section ordering disagreements? It should not be "I'm the reviewer here are my demands", if the present state works, which I honestly feel it does, then there is no problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys. My feeling is that the current structure of the article does not highlight the chosen song sufficiently well, and scatters information about it. However, this may not be enough of a problem to prohibit GA status, in which case I ought to try and address the prose concerns (criterion 1a). I will wait for SilkTork to comment on your responses, and have another close look at the article myself. I think this reassessment would benefit from further independent views. Geometry guy 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(ec)I haven't looked at the article recently. I'll do that in a moment. But I wanted to address some of the concerns raised above first. I agree that it shouldn't be "I'm the reviewer here are my demands". It should be "here are my concerns" and "here are my suggestions for addressing those concerns". And it should be "I am willing to discuss the best way forward". I think I have done those things. However, the common theme here has been that the main contributors do not agree with the concerns raised, and we have reached an impasse. The best way out of this would be if some uninvolved person came forward and gave their view. But that hasn't happened. I feel that my part has largely been done here. I have raised a concern. The main contributors disagreed with my assessment so I brought it to community review where I expanded upon my concerns, and gave some background information which is pertinent to the concerns and considerations, though is not decisive in making any decision about GA status. The situation has not substantively progressed from where it was when I brought the case here. The main contributors and I disagree. I'm unsure how much that is going to change. I made an offer to assist, which was dependent on some measure of agreement or at least an ability to discuss disagreements in a positive atmosphere, and that hasn't been taken up. I wouldn't like to get into a stressful conflict over editing an article. My recommendation is to delist as the concerns still stand, and - I have just checked - there has been no progress on the article since I made edits to the lead on the 10th and made those comments and suggestions above. However, as there is a basic disagreement between myself and the main contributors I would prefer if someone else made the final decision so that it doesn't appear as though this is simply a personal issue. SilkTork *^YES! 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is exactly what I was talking about yesterday. You say that the concerns still stand, when they have all been addressed besides a structuring issue based on preference -- which in no way should be grounds for a delisting as it complies with both Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Layout. I don't see how delisting makes any sense since the issues have been addressed. Please take a closer look at it, as well as your original concerns which were in fact met. Greekboy (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I can see how the the talk about structure has obscured what I wanted to convey about my main concern with "Broad in its coverage". The aspects of "Broad" that I wanted to address are "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", which I felt would be assisted by reorganising the article, and by addressing the focus of the article. Where we disagree is on the central issue of what the article should be about. I have raised concerns that an article on Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 should have as a fairly central part of the article some solid information on the song that Greece entered, rather than simply a link to information elsewhere. And that information on what the performer of the song wore is very low down on the priority scale. I felt that looking at the way the article was structured would assist with addressing that core concern. It is not the structure by itself that I am concerned with, but the structure as a way of possibly helping to address the main issue. The structure is a means to convey the information. A well organised structure can aid both writer and reader in understanding an article and the main points. I was suggesting restructuring as a way of bringing the song into focus. However, that is incidental. The main issue remains. The main contributors are uncomfortable with having the song as one of the main points of the article. The main contributors feel that the performer and the performance ranks higher. I have genuine concerns that articles for which issues were raised about their ability to generate solid material, and which are also being used as templates for others to copy, are fundamentally not focused on the main points and so are not "broad in coverage". I feel I have explained and expanded on this a number of times and in a number of ways, but with absolutely no progress. I agree that I may be wrong in my understanding and interpretation of the criteria. I am always ready to be pointed in the right direction. Meanwhile, I don't feel that the decision on how this GAR is closed should be up to me. My concerns remain, but I may be wrong. I note that G'Guy is leaning toward accepting the contributors' view that the article does cover the main aspects with the current coverage of the song, and though I would be disappointed in Guy accepting that view, I would accept it, and learn from the experience. SilkTork *^YES! 22:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that it would mess up the flow of the article. Like we discuss the song right away and then later repeat it with the other candidates in the selection? Its not that the song is not important enough to get its own section, its that all of the information is there were it makes sense (though not entirely together: if someone wanted that I feel the song's page will suffice). This was the first article expanded into something credible. When we made it, we decided that its focus would be about the country's "journey to the contest", not really a summary of related events or topics. I can see how it would work if it were (sections: background, national final highlights, song, performer, eurovision, aftermath), but to me it reads better as a chronology. This is the only page for the national final and that is one of its focuses. I feel like if it were to be blurbs about different aspects of Greece's participation, it would not be as interesting an article and serve more as just a place to get a brief overview. I like it as an article answering the question: What went on with Greece's participation in the contest this year?; oh looks like a national final, oh they chose this song and there was a promotional tour. Its more interesting to read about the "journey".

Like I said from the very beginning, I knew there were some problems, reading it last month before all of this I was like huh, how did we miss this before, but the article has come a long way from when you first put it up for reassessment and I now feel confident that it should be kept as a GA. But, I too am eagerly waiting for more input, specifically from the original reviewer, who seems to have disappeared. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to get a better understanding of the situation. Like stated before, the current decision on what content to include in the article has been reached through consensus via the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. These pages for each country in the Eurovision Song Contest each year are about the country's journey, which includes its national final, promotional tour, and such. Changing the structure of the article to be more about the song rather than the countries journey would go against the consensus and do more harm than good. The fact is that the articles main focus is not about the song only. The main focus is about the country's journey, which include the national selection process, promotion, performance, performer, and song. Like Grk1011 stated, these pages also double as pages for the countries National Finals (as determined by consensus again), since like you said, some are not notable enough for their own pages. Changing the structure of these article to focus solely on the song would mess up the original goal of these articles. If your only other complaint is the "unnecessary detail" about what the contestant wore, then that could be taken out. It was significant at the time, as the singer, Kalomoira had ties with Jennifer Lopez. (Besides being exclusively dressed by J-Lo, Kalomoira borrowed dance routines from J-Lo's past shows) Maybe more detail about that should be brought to light? But like I said, that could be taken out. You write that your main concern is what the article should be about and focused on. But like stated, there has already been a consensus on that in the wikiproject. I believe that broad coverage can be met, and has been met, with the current focus and format. I understand where you are coming from, but the structure that you are suggesting really does not fit in with the articles main goal. This is why I have been saying that the disagreement over the structure is based on an opinion. Do not take it the wrong way, I am not trying to explain the situation in an ill manner. I am just trying to clear some things up since it seems like we are going in circles. :) Greekboy (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused: a major component of your argument with SilkTork is that these articles do not need to be structured in a common way, whereas now you are saying that they should be according to consensus at WikiProject Eurovision. I disagree with common structure, no matter who proposes it. The focus and scope of each article is determined by its title, notability issues, and what reliable sources have to say. I would expect that Sweden_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_1974 (once expanded) would have a very different focus to this one. No one is proposing to change the article to be about the song. However, turning it into a "journey" for "flow" is unencyclopedic, bordering on original research by synthesis, unless you have a reliable source that approaches the subject in the same way. Geometry guy 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. A request: if we are to go round in circles (as it seems), please can we try to be a bit more concise about it.

I didn't mean that it should have the same structure. I just meant that it should have the same focus in general. The current focus of these articles are its journey. (Which are the background, Selection process, Promotion, Performance, Performer, ect. --- how it got to its choice, and what happened after that) It is currently in an encyclopedic way, not like a book or fan-ish, full of sourced information. SilkTork's proposal was to focus the articles primarily on the song only, which would change the focus outlined by the wiki-project. Now having a guideline for a common focus doesn't mean that the structure has to be the same for each article. The guideline for the focus only is there to instruct user on what type of information should be included in these articles if available. That has to do with the circumstances of that year, but only if it fits in with that particular year. Greekboy (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done some editing which I hope combines the aims of those involved in this Review. I have removed some more commentary on the individual performances as these commentaries appear to attract criticism. However, I have mainly kept the existing structure. I have moved some text and done some rewording in order to clarify points, and to bring the song(s) into focus without swamping the article with information on the song(s). There is still a bit of copyediting to do, and some decisions to be made on the inclusion of material in the Promotion of "Secret Combination" and After Eurovision sections. I feel the material on Kalomoira's dispute with her record company belongs more appropriately in the Kalomoira article. And if we are debating how much information on the "Secret Combination" song should be in this article compared to the "Secret Combination", then information on the promotion of the song possibly belongs more properly in "Secret Combination". Though it is debatable if there is a need to have two articles which so closely overlap. Most of "Secret Combination" is about Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - so some consideration needs to given to where these two articles diverge. Anyway, I wouldn't continue to object to this being GA on the basis of "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", though there are still the copyediting issues, and the question over inclusion of the material mentioned above which impacts on "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". My recommendation now would be to allow 7 days to do the copyediting and make a decision on the questionable material. SilkTork *^YES! 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the after eurovision section about her record label, etc. was added at the request of the original reviewer who felt that it would close the article well, which I think it does. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think that at least some of the performance information for the songs in the running should be included. Greekboy (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some commentary on the performances in the Final section of the selection process would be appropriate. But care needs to be taken on the amount and the type of commentary. SilkTork *^YES! 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in general the article is better now, but still has some progress to make in terms of comments and suggestions already made but not acted upon. I'll see if I can get down and spend an hour or so on this tonight to attend to those suggestions. SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent reviewer opinion

I have approached this reassessment as though conducting a Good Article review, and without reading the above debate in any detail. I hope this will enable me to give a fresh perspective on the article. It is informative and well-researched, and I enjoyed reading it - I'm very appreciative of the amount of work that has gone into writing it, and I don't intend my comments below to be destructive in any way, but to help guide further improvements to the article.

Per the GA criteria:

• Prose: this would benefit from a general copyedit for clarity and flow. Some sentences come over as abrupt and disconnected, and awkward parsing leaves the text ambiguous in places. A few examples:
  • "Before Greece's win, its highest placing was third place, achieved by the duo Antique—of which Elena Paparizou was a member—in 2001 with "Die for You" and then again by Sakis Rouvas in 2004 with "Shake It"." Too much going on; split the sentence up
  • "Greece participated for the twenty-ninth time in the Eurovision Song Contest by once again entering after Sarbel's seventh place finish with "Yassou Maria" in 2007" Reads as though Sarbel had finished in seventh place more than once
  • "ERT originally proposed to Elli Kokkinou internally..." I think I know what this is getting at, but I'm getting a bizarre mental image... ;)
• Manual of Style compliance looks fine for GA
• Accuracy and verifiability: this seems reasonable, though...
  • Three of the links (one cited twice, so four refs) appear to be dead or broken:
    • http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=67&country=19
    • http://www.lgr.co.uk/music/news/13012/secret-combination-storms-into-uk-top-40/
    • http://www.lgr.co.uk/music/news/12899/kalomoira-hails-3rd-in-eurovision-well-done-to-greece/publisher=
  • The second paragraph of Background is unreferenced
  • I'm not 100% happy about the use of Greek-language sources without a translation provided for verifiability (though this isn't a major issue)
  • The article is bordering on a synthesis of primary source material in some places. The ideal source for the article would be a reliable secondary source entitled "Greece in the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest" (or something similar), where someone else has done the research first. However, I see no sign that the article uses its sources to advance any "novel conclusions", so as long as care continues to be taken I think this is OK.
• Broadness and focus: again, this looks fairly good. However,...
  • Some information on critical opinion of Greek participation (and perhaps the Eurovision itself) would help to flesh out the article. For example, the perennial Greece/Cyprus block-vote and the issues of 'friendly voting' might be worth a mention.
  • I think the article focus wanders in places. As a casual reader, I'm not really interested in what costume changes were made or what the backing dancers were doing, and I think descriptons of this don't work well in a written medium. I'd be more interested in, for example, finding out how the chosen songs were received by music reviewers.
• The final three criteria (neutrality, stability and images) look fine.

Given the above, I don't think the article currently meets the GA criteria, and I support its delisting unless the issues identified are addressed. It has the makings of an excellent article though, and I thank its authors for their work. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks EyeSerene. This is a very helpful review. Geometry guy 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll respond point by point. Yes, it does need a good copy-edit, though I should probably not do it since I know what I was trying to say when I wrote it so most of it probably makes sense to me already, though not the average reader. Eurovision.tv reorganized its website so I'll fetch a fresh link for that source. LGR likes to delete their articles after a few weeks so I'll search the wayback machine or whatever its called. The background section was thrown in to appease the previous reviewer (and its a nice addition), but other than its addition, not much attention has been paid to it; I don't know where I would find a source for that besides sourcing each year and somehow having the reader notice that some year's selections were different. With the Greek sources, I used Babelfish to translate since I'm not fluent, anyone challenging can do the same. There really aren't many music reviewers, so I don't know where I would find that and now I have a question: The Cyprus/Greece voting should go in the Background section?

Thank you for taking a look. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also take a look and see what fixes can be made to the above concerns. Thank you for bringing in a new review opinion. Greekboy (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that most of the above concerns have now been addressed besides a few tweaks that still need to be made. I think that the article is progressing well. I just replaced the 2 LGR sources with other sources. Greekboy (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you've been putting in on this. I think the prose particularly has hugely improved, and the article organisation feel much tighter. The removal of most of the performance information is good too, although I agree with the above comments that its inclusion in the final is relevant. I'd still like to see something about how the Eurovision itself is viewed in Greece, as I think this characterises the nature of a country's participation - for example, in the UK it's taken less than seriously (with broadcaster Terry Wogan providing a very entertaining sarcastic commentary throughout) because the voting is seen as more about politics than music (ie the predicatability of which nations will vote full marks for each other regardless of the quality of their entries). I was wondering how, or even if, the same issues are perceived in Greece. Great work though so far ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I wasnt really able to find anything about song reviews, since that doesnt really happen in Greece, but this idea about how the contest is viewed in Greece might be easy to find in a source. (BTW, it is viewed as something of national importance, especially after the win). I am also on the fence about adding 2 sentences to the article on how Kalomoira herself was viewed in the contest. Specifically from an interview the other day: "In the same interview, host Eleni Menegaki stated that for her as well as many others, it was one of the most defining points in their view of Kalomoira's career to date. This was due to the fact that it displayed her as more of a mature professional performer, distancing her from the innocent little girl image people had associated her with after her participation in Fame Story." Greekboy (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested too, but think that the information EyeSerene is asking for may be better placed in Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest. Unless there is something specific about the reception in 2008 this is a bridge too far, and not needed for breadth of coverage. Geometry guy 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a specific view or reception of the contest in Greece for 2008 that differed from previous years....I don't know though. (If it should be included I mean) Greekboy (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the friendly voting between Greece and Cyprus. With the review, probably not going to happen, there aren't really any magazines or reliable sources that actually review albums and songs besides like whats on it and the writers on the songs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re all the above, I think G'guy is correct that detailed exposition of the Greek view of Eurovision properly belongs in the parent article (otherwise you'd be repeating the same content for every 'Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY' article). All I was really asking for was a brief mention, which you have dexterously integrated into the article.

If reviews don't exist, that's not a problem. Consider that objection struck ;)

For the actual contest itself (and again, per G'guy we have to be careful to stick to the scope of the article), you mention that it's regarded as of national importance. Some reflection of this might be good in the After Eurovision section if sources can be found - ie how was a third place finish received? What did the news media have to say? Did the Greek public feel let down or pleased by the performance? I think this might help to balance the section, which at the moment is as much about the singer as about the contest. Personally, I'd be inclined to replace (or severely trim) the stuff about Kalomoira's record label and moving to the US, with your suggestion about the Eleni Menegaki interview - I think it's more relevant to the article, and might integrate nicely with my previous suggestion.

I think we're at the stage now where the final polish is going into the article, and I'd probably support its retention as a GA in its current form (obviously I can't speak for SilkTork though!). Those last few tweaks would be great though, if you have no objection ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the information about Kalomoira and the record label was related to Eurovision because she claimed that they made her pay for things while at the contest and did not honor the agreements they made before the contest. I worded it a little different to clarify that it was not just a general disagreement with her record label and tried to incorporate the Eleni Menegaki interview info at the end. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to look for sources on how it was received in Greece. I don't think it should be too difficult. So I guess now that Menegaki comment about her view on Kalomoira fits in? Also I am wondering if the actual final voting should be elaborated more. Like the fact that she led in the voting until the ex-soviet countries started to vote. (or would that be too objective and off topic?) Greekboy (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner - I was (entirely my own fault) without computer access over the weekend. The relevance of the record label stuff is clearer now, and I think the interview fits in nicely. Regarding the voting, as you suggest it's probably relevant as long as it can be stated without making it sound like political voting knocked her off the top spot (...unless, of course, it's been expressed that way in a reliable source!). I think you've done a fine job though, and pending other reviewer comments I am now recommending the article be retained as GA. Thank you for all your hard work. EyeSerene^talk 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've expanded the lead slightly (and tweaked it a little) to include the prose changes discussed above and, I hope, better summarise the article. Please proofread/adjust/revert as necessary ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I will add in that part from the interview once again. I am still working on those other sources -- I had a busy weekend too. Greekboy (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It occurred to me last week that the remaining concerns raised by SilkTork might be addressed by flattening section 2 a little. On revisiting the article, I now see that this has been done. I think we have reached the stage where this GAR can be closed as keep. Geometry guy 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)