Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eurovision Song Contest/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

(Self nomination) I recently conducted a complete review of this article in order to bring it up to standard. I now believe that this article meets all the criteria as specified in Wikipedia guidelines to be a featured article. It has recently successfully been listed as a Good Article, and this is the next step. The Eurovision Song Contest is an internationally recognised institution, and deserves to have a top-quality article: I have tried my best. Now if there are any criticisms which I have overlooked, I would welcome other experienced editors' comments in order that I may address them. If there are no criticisms.. please support :) Thank you. EuroSong talk 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Referencing is insufficient (although several of the web sources are scholarly papers, a search for offline sources would probably be in order here) and inline citations need to be used more thoroughly. Also needs some copyediting, from what I saw. --RobthTalk 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. Could you please tell me exactly which statements you think need more citations - and from offline sources? If you be precise then I can address them. Also about copy-editing... which section(s) do you think are not so good? I need to know specific criticism, in order to be able to address the points. Thanks. EuroSong talk 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order, here. First, for more inline citations. In general, it's good to have a citation after every major statement of fact, so that a reader can quickly determine what the source for each statement is. So, for example, in the History section, I would like to see a citation for Eurovision being based on the San Remo festival, and another for the statement that the broadcast was originally carried over cables. They won't always need to come that frequently, but whenevver you make a statement that a reader might want to see the source for, put it in to make it easy for them.
What constitutes a "major" statement of fact? One could argue that every single statement needs a citation. This would clearly be ridiculous though. Surely the only things which need citations are statements which a reader may possibly dispute: surprising statements, or statements involving the quotation of statistics. Should it be a barrier to featuring an article, that generalised, non-controversial statements are not cited? EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second: Offline sources. It isn't that I want to see particular statements sourced to offline sources, but rather that I think that fully researching this topic would have to include finding out what the major offline sources would be, reading those, and incorporating anything new into the article. Especially for a topic that predates the internet by decades, a web search is not sufficient research.
Okay... well I will have to see about this. There is relatively little written about the Eurovision Song Contest in hard-copy, published form. There are a few books, but I don't have them to hand. Looks like I'll have to buy them, eh? Just in order to check that some facts are actually mentioned in them, in order to cite them. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a copyedit. Picking a section at random, the political voting section has a number of problems:
  • "The Contest has long been perceived as a political institution, where countries allocate points according to their political alignment rather than how they like the songs.": 'Where' is the wrong word here, "countries" are not acting--judges are acting on behalf of countries, and "according to their political alignment rather than how they like the songs" is awkward phrasing, the end in particular. Something like "based on their nation's political relationship to the performer's country rather than on their opinion of the performance" would be preferable.
I think that the phrasing is okay, although I do accept that your example reads better. Okay, I changed that. The word "where" in this context is perfectly correct English. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certain other countries, with which": unncecessary comma.
Agree. Dealt with by previous text revision. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are therefore more likely to favour their own": "and are therefore more likely to appreciate each other's music", perhaps?
Agree. Changed. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for example the much-remarked-upon exchanging of 12 points between Greece and Cyprus is because...": "the exchanging is because" is a grammatically incorrect construction.
Disagree: this is perfect English. "much-remarked-upon exchanging of 12 points between Greece and Cyprus" is the subject of the sentence (as per subject, verb, object), as a compound phrasal subject. However I can understand that perhaps to non-native speakers it may be slightly confusing, so I have now changed it to: "the reason why Greece and Cyprus frequently exchange 12 points is because..." EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar fixes need to be made throughout the article; someone needs to go through it quite thoroughly.
I think that my English is excellent: however, I will indeed go through the article again and see if there are any sentences or phrases which might be simplified or clarified. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of my comments, I suppose, is that this isn't yet to the point of picking out specific errors; substantial research and work needs to be done on the whole article before it will be time-effective to go through and pick out the remaining problems. --RobthTalk 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your criticism, Robth. I shall address your points in due course. EuroSong talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I am very sorry to do so, as I would love to see this article become an FA. Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot to improve:
  1. First of all, references. Eight of them, and only for some more minor bits of information, is too little IMHO. I am very surprised by the lack of official ESC and EBU sites on the list. Independent sites such as esctoday could also be good references, provided they are used with caution and consideration.
    More particularly, the "Museum of Broadcast Communications" gives the 600 million number perhaps implying the POTENTIAL number of TV viewers in transmitting countries - the highest estimates I have seen so far were around 350 millions, besides I believe EBU gives some more precise data on that.
    Besides, the Criticism of musical style and presentation does not look too complete with only one reference - such sections should present an array of opinions from sources important to the matter of the article.
    1. There are only two official sites: the EBU site (ebu.ch) and the official Eurovision site (eurovision.tv). All other sites are amateur/fan websites, and I am reluctant to cite these as sources. Also, as I replied to Robth above: what citations are really needed? I believe that I have cited sources for any major or controversial statements. Surely it is not necessary to quote a source for every single little bit of information? Is it, for example, not acceptable that I mention that shuttle bus services are laid on in Eurovision Week to ferry the performers to and fron the venue - because there is no source cited for this? I am sure that the Encyclopædia Britannica does not cite sources for every statement made. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The structuring of the article is not that good.
    1. The "History" section is in fact devoted to the origins of the Contest, the rest of ESC's history is discussed in other sections (btw, I believe the History of the Eurovision Song Contest is actually redundant in its present form and could easily be merged into the main article to the benefit of it).
      1. Good point: I have indeed focussed on the origins in the History section. I shall address this. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed: changed section title to "Origins". Not appropriate to merge whole "History" content into main article though; it includes a large table. Shall take relevant sections from History article and include elsewhere in this main article. EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Rules and Format sections are not very well written and do not contain everything they should. Moreover, some rules are also in the "Expansion of the Contest" section, which is not well written either. I would say the article should adopt either a historic or thematic main structuring theme, and IMHO the latter would be both more functional and easier to switch to from the present arrangement. Then, each section could present a historic view on the development of a given feature, like the rules used to determine the winner.
      1. The reason some rules are dealt with in the "expansion" section is because there is a degree of overlap, and I did not want to repeat myself: and I see it as more important to mention particular rules in context of their relevant section than just list all the rules lumped together in their own section. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed Rules section, presenting historic points of rules as suggested. EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some remarks as to particular sections as they are now:
    1. Rules - neither well written, nor complete, unfortunately. This should be absolutely exhaustive, or at least mention the most important rules, which ought to then be discussed in detail in the "Rules" article.
      1. I shall address this as below. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Rules - the language rule needs to be discussed in more detail. I would say the current "languages" section of the "Rules" article would belong there. I would actually consider merging the whole article into the main article as well. - Addressed language rule details as above. No need to merge whole Rules sub-article into section though: the sub-article is in need of a re-write anyway. EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Rules - the "right of first refusal" is not too obvious an expression for a non-native English speaker like myself. It is used consistently throughout the article, without being explained as "the right to host the next contest, with the option to refuse to do so". Besides, is it formally stated that a broadcaster might refuse to host the ESC, or was it that just a matter of fact?
      1. This is en.wikipedia.org, not simple.wikipedia.org. Is there any rule for FA candidates that they must not use phrases or expressions which may be obscure to non-native speakers? It's not as if I'm using a very technical/specialist term which even most native speakers would not use. Please tell me where in WP guidelines it says that common English expression are not allowed, if foreigners might not understand them. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - No further comment needed I hope - unless you can show me where in the WP guidelines it says as above :) EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Format - a more detailed description of the usual course of the event and historic changes would be welcome. Perhaps the Spin-Offs section belongs here as sub-section. Interval acts and presenters could also be covered in more detail. The Semi is also not mentioned at all - I would move the Semi section as a subsection there.
      1. I agree that more detail could be included, and I will address this as below. However I disagree that the Semi-final section should be included here. The "Format" section refers to aspects of the Contest which are more or less set in stone, and have been since the very beginning. That's why it only deals with the basics. I want the Format section to be an "evergreen" section, which is not subject to change. The semi-final only stated in 2004, and arose because of some very specific circumstances: that's why I included it, logically, after explaining about the expansion of the Contest and the problems which were created by having too many countries. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Voting - I guess this could be expanded with some info from the "Voting" article, and the "block voting" controversy would belong there. This section should be reviewed very carefully to avoid weasel words and some amibgious and implying phrases, like "it is still, however, not possible to vote for your own country" - will it ever be and does anything point towards a change in this rule?
      1. Agree that is can be expanded, as per below. However, I do want to keep all the "Criticisms" (or controvery) to their own section, and not splatter them all over the article. The article is supposed to be about how things do work - not about what people are complaining about. That belongs in its own section. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Hosting - the economics of the contest, including funding, returns and such, could be discussed in more detail, even if not in this particular section.
      1. Agree. Will be addressed as below. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Hosting - has UK hosted the ESC when not winning the previous year because they came second then or for some other reason? Is there a formal rule, or is it done by some gentleman's agreement?
      1. Good point. I will explain this more clearly. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Eurovision week - I haven't read this section thoroughly enough to give a full verdict, but its sole inclusion and the topics covered deserve praise for whoever authored it!
      1. Thank you, I'm glad you like it. I wrote it all myself :) EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Winners - some winners, although not launched to international superstardom like ABBA, still became very popular in their own countries, like Carola or Edyta Górniak (correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess these were the beginnings of their big careers)
      1. I am a bit confused. We're talking about the "Winners" section. Carola was a winner: Edyta Górniak was not. What are you proposing here? I'm not dealing with non-winners in this section. Unless you're proposing another section, which deals with non-winning artists' success. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Expansion of the contest - split and merge with "Participation" and "Rules"
      1. Why? This is a major topic in its own right. The Contest continued much the same for 38 years until 1993/1994, after which it went through some rapid and revolutionary changes. These were the direct result of the expansion, as more countries wished to enter. It's major series of events in the Contest's history. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Criticism - when you move the discussion of block voting to "Voting", what is left is the "Musical style and presentation". I believe it could be expanded into a section of its own, discussing the historic development of those, not only criticism.
      1. I disagree about moving the voting controversy into the voting section, as per the reasons mentioned above. Surely these are just ideas which you have, which you would have implemented had you written the article: they're not barriers to the article gaining Featured status, because the article does not follow WP guidelines. However I do agree that there could be a separate "Musical styles" section. I'll think about it. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Trivia - trivia do not really belong in an encyclopedic article, a good way of salvaging them is not putting them in a section called "Trivia" :D Lebanon belongs in "Participation", Sanomi in a section on languages, and we can perhaps live without the Portugal reference, there are many other similarly remote connections to Eurovision not mentioned.
      1. Hmm okay... point taken, possibly :) Is it really considered unenclyclopædic to have a trivia section? I thought it was just a point of interest... as the idea of any article is to inform and entertain the reader. I can remove it though. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed: Trivia section deleted; point about Lebanon mentioned in Broadcasting Rules section. EuroSong talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I believe this article DOES have FA potential and deserves to become one. I hope this won't discourage all the editors that have contributed from further improving the article, but rather help accelerate its development. I keep my fingers crossed :D Bravada, talk - 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive criticism, Bravada. I shall address individual points in due course, but before I do I need to ask one thing: a major theme of your criticism is that several sections do not include enough detail, and you suggest merging information into the article, which is currently contained in sub-articles (such as the ones about history & voting). In fact, this information used to be included in the main article, but then it was just getting far too long (over 50k). These sections were split out into sub-articles in order to make the main article more concise; and when I re-wrote the main article, I kept it concise because I thought that there is no chance of it becoming featured if it goes into so much detail as to make it a LONG way over 30k. That's what would happen if all the detail which you suggest were included. So I am therefore confused. According to Featured Article criteria, what should I be aiming for? An article with great detail but which is huge in length? As I say.. I will address all the points individually in due course, but I need to clarify this before doing anything else. Thanks. EuroSong talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that the sections that refer to the individual articles are not really exhaustive in that they do not give an overview of what can be found in those articles and do not provide the reader of the main article with sufficient information. On the other hand, the "descendant" articles are far from perfect too, and if you remove some stuff that clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia and what is doubled with other sections of the main article, they would be relatively small and could easily be included as sections.
Besides, the FA criteria say that the article should be comprehensive meaning "exhaustive" and of appropriate length, not specifying any "ideal length", but rather pointing towards including all necessary and no unnecessary material. Good old Celine Dion (which is probably the oldest somewhat Eurovision-related article) is 45k itself and could hardly be subdivided. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is 54k. So, large size is not a major obstacle in obtaining FA status.
What I would focus on is bringing the article into a really pristine state and perhaps only then considering splitting it, should relevant objections be raised by FA reviewers then, spinning off some sections into separate articles with appropriate summaries in the main article. As I say, let's forget about the size of the article for a while and focus on quality, this can (and would better) be dealt with later on.
I would also advise you to use citation templates, especially {{cite web}}, as it requires you to give the date on which you accessed the page, which in turn makes it easier for other users to check the referenced site even if it has changed or is down, by means of the Wayback Machine.
Regards, Bravada, talk - 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's my reply to all the "as below" references which I made above. Thank you for your explanation that an article which is long does not get barred from attaining Featured status because of its length. As I was re-writing the Eurovision article, one major consideration was the length. That's the reason I did not go into huge detail in several sections. With your statement that long articles don't matter, however, I shall therefore expand everything to include pretty much all the detail I can think of. Much of this will be taken from the various sub-articles (rewritten). Thanks. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how a article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. --Jayzel 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jayzel, thank you for your support. I am a bit confused, however - since you seem to be referring to these discussions regarding the FA director, in relation to your decision to support this nomination. I don't understand what Wikipedia politics have to do with the Eurovision article's quality and eligibility to become a FA. If you genuinely think that this article is of Featured quality, then that's great, thank you. But I still don't get your reasoning in relation to the FA director issue. EuroSong talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead does not seem to meet WP:LEAD - i.e. it should probably beefier and have a more comprehensive overview of the article... RN 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years and solitary days. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There are no links to "solitary years". I know many people make the mistake of linking, for example, 2006 when it is not needed - but if you examine the article more closely you will see that the year links do not simply go to those years: they are piped links to the individual Eurovision year articles! I think this is actually quite cool, not to mention relevant :)
With regards to linking dates (I think 24th May is the only one linked?) I do this so that logged-in users' date preferences can be used, as per WP functionality. So, apart from this date comment, do you support or oppose the article for Featured status? Thanks. EuroSong talk 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eurovision_Song_Contest/archive1&oldid=272536752"