Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010
![]() | Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 29, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. — Golden call me maybe? 13:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
- Apologies for the late review! A nice article overall with some issues that can be easily addressed:
Lead & Infobox
[edit]- Add a comma after "with the song "Thunder and Lightning""
Everything else is good with the lead and infobox.
Background
[edit]Refs #1 and #2 checked – both are reliable and have appropriate information about the sentences they're cited for. No MOS issues in this section either.
Before Eurovision
[edit]- Link Oslo
- Ref #6 doesn't support the sentence it's cited for
- Neither Ref #8 nor #9 mention "BHRT Studio A" or it being held in Sarajevo.
- Ref #12' URL opens the main page of the website
- Ref #11 only supports Rybak's appearance in the show, the rest are unsourced (I imagine they were cited in Ref #12, which doesn't work).
Refs #3, #4, #5, #7, #10, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19 all checked and fine.
At Eurovision
[edit]- Unlink Oslo as it should be linked in Before Eurovision section
- 1-8 -> 1–8 (en dash instead of a hyphen)
Refs #20–#37 checked – all are reliable and have appropriate information about the sentences they're cited for.
Conclusion
[edit]No issues with plagiarism (9.1% per Earwig's copyvio detector). All three used images in the article are free. No major issues with MOS and sourcing. @Grk1011: Ready to pass once you've addressed the above issues. — Golden call me maybe? 08:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Golden: I believe I addressed your concerns. I also added a small bit more that I discovered while trying to track down some supplemental refs. Thanks for the review! Grk1011 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grk1011: Excellent, all points adequately addressed. Happy to pass. Congratulations! — Golden call me maybe? 14:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)