Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Participation map[edit]

The participation map shows that Hungary did not qualify to the final, but they did. András Kállay-Saunders performed his song "Running"? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which map are you viewing? As I see it, Hungary are shown (in green) as qualified on the map. Wes Mᴥuse 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr, I'm such a fucking idiot; I confused Hungary with Slovakia. Sorry, my bad. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artists award should be artistic award[edit]

I happened to notice an inconsistency in the section on the Marcel Bezençon Awards. In the paragraph it talks about the Artistic Award, while the table calls it the Artists Award. I assume the table is incorrect, given the descriptions here: [1]. Puf (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to have linked to Marcel Bezençon Awards, as the link you provided above didn't direct anywhere. And yes, it should read Artistic Award. It is merely a typo error, nothing major. Wes Mᴥuse 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Bezen%C3%A7on_Awards

Incidents section: comment from Lithuanian spokesperson[edit]

Continuation of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 3#'Incidents' section?

Is it really necessary to make such a big deal about the comment from the Lithuanian spokesperson? Clearly the joke was not intended to be offensive and it doesn't seem like it really offended anyone, since it was a salute to Wurst, if anything. Besides, the host saying "Time to shave, I think not" is most likely due to the voting moving on to Austria following Lithuania, not a reproach at the comment. T.W. (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage a particular incident or topic gets should be dependent on the level of coverage it gets in reliable sources as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS; not editor's personal views. It seems clear to me that this incident got more than enough coverage to justify the three to four lines it gets in the article. CT Cooper · talk 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ondas Award[edit]

It has been announced that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of an Ondas Award in the International TV category.Official Site, El País These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are relevant and well-known in Spain. I'd like to include a line in the article but I don't know where it could go. Xelaxa (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xelaxa: I would recommend mentioning this at the current GA review for this article, as I'm not sure if it may bear an impact on the current review of the article. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xelaxa:, the GA review has now closed resulting in the article being promoted to Good Article status. Which means we will now have to discuss this matter here rather than via the GA review section. I think to include this information, is going to require a broad consensus from the project as a whole, as we wouldn't want to end up having the article demoted so soon after its GA promotion. Careful thought into how we would include this, where we would include it, and how it would be worded, is what we need to concentrate the discussion on here - as the next step for this article is potentially Featured Article Candidacy, so making sure we follow the FA criteria would be extremely wise, when discussing how we'd add this information. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse:OK, thank you, so may I bring here a precedent that exists in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 article. The broadcast of the 2011 Contest was awarded the Rose d'Or award for Best Live Event. This is mentioned in the lead of the article only. I think we may need to think how to include information about accolades the contest receives as a tv production, without coming into conflict with the criteria you mention. Xelaxa (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xelaxa:, per WP:LEAD, we are only suppose to summarise in-brief writing, what is mentioned within the main body of the article in more detail. If between us we can come up with a decently worded prose, and determine whereabouts it would be suitable in the main article body - my guess would be either before or after the incidents section. And then in the lead we could add "The 2014 Contest won [name of award] in the International Television Category at the Ondas Awards, in Spain". The main body could start off "The Eurovision Song Contest 2014 was presented with the [name of award] in the International Television Category, at the Ondas Awards, held in Spain on the [date]. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a way around this. I've included this into the "Other awards" section, with a detailed prose to explain what the awards are about and when this award was won - using the {{Awards table}} template. I'll add brief (citeless) info into the lead. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse:, I think the wording you propose is very clear (there is a small misunderstanding I will point later on), the {{Awards table}} template fits perfectly, and the solution you found is valid overall. However, I also think, regarding the inclusion of this into the "Other awards" section, there is a danger of mistaking different contexts. The Marcel Bezençon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are parallel awards in the context of the song contest itself: these are awards that purposedly exist for the competing entries. The accolades the contest gets as a tv production, like the Ondas Award, are related to the reception the contest gets as a tv broadcast. Whatever is the solution we adopt, I think it should be applied also to the 2011 Contest article and our project, generally, that's also why I wanted to bring the Rose d'Or example to our attention. Xelaxa (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the small misunderstanding I referred to: The Ondas Awards ceremony will take place on 25 November, though the award recipients were announced yesterday. Xelaxa (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xelaxa: there would be no mistaking in context of the "other awards" section whatsoever. The main section title is pretty much self-explanatory - it covers all other awards not issued by the EBU themselves. Within that section are sub-sections for each respective awarding body, with a prose for each, to avoid "mistake in context". I don't feel the wording has any small misunderstanding, as I have followed procedure to make sure it cites sources whilst in my own words. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) - Oh it was the date, my bad.. Well spotted! Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: The prose is not "mistaking", but I still see a problem with content structure. You say the "other awards" section includes "all other awards not issued by the EBU themselves". I think that's too broad when we are talking about two very different aspects: the competition ESC consists of and its "extended world", on one hand, and the reception ESC gets as a broadcast, a product by itself, on the other. The awarding bodies that were already included in this section, exist due to the Eurovision Song Contest, and hand out awards annually to its competing entries. These are "unofficial" awards that are parallel to the contest itself. The Ondas Awards have no established link to the Eurovision Song Contest, they honour different tv works every year (among other fields), and this year it has happened they decided to honour the production of the 2014 ESC Grand Final (EBU itself and DR). It is a tangential event (vs. parallel). I actually think the accolades the contest receives have more to do with "ratings", as different aspects of "reception": "critical reception"/"accolades" and "ratings". Xelaxa (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the title of the section is "Other awards" which is an ambiguous title in itself. It basically says to the general viewer that the section is covering a topic on "other awards", whether that be unofficial awards Such as the Marcel Bezençon Awards, OGAE Poll Award, Barabara Dex Award, or other awards in connection to the contest itself. If it is going to be a case of "mistaking title identity", then that is easily resolved too - just add a prose to explain that several awards are issued for a variety of genres, from unofficial ones for artists, and professional ones for the show itself. Then we sub-divide the section so that it covers each respective awarding body. This then keeps everything concise enough for the FA criteria - something which I am starting to get very familiar with, and learning a lot about article structuring and what is expected from us in terms of Wikipedia. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surely not as knowledgeable about FA criteria, but I am convinced there are other possibilities that can resolve this, maybe in ways that are more concise and less ambiguous, and still meet the criteria. I think we can agree there is a clear distinction between unofficial awards closely linked to ESC that are issued in the ESC context every year, and professional accolades with no established ESC-connection that ESC may receive occasionally. Why not structure according to this very clear distinction? Why resort to a pre-existing section that dit not contemplate this and make it more miscellaneous? What if an ESC edition was particularly acclaimed as a TV production and received awards from a handful of awarding bodies? Would a sub-section for each of them be created, necessarily? In fact the {{Awards table}} you introduced is used to list awards that a certain work or professional receives from different awarding bodies. In articles about tv shows, there is often a "Reception" section that encompasses ratings, critical response and accolades, as in FA-Class article example Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series)#Reception. In the case of an awards ceremony telecast that received awards from other awarding bodies, it is resolved with a "Ratings and reception" sub-section: 86th Academy Awards#Ratings and reception. I bring these examples as possible inspirations. In our case, the information about ratings is a kind-of-orphaned line as the introduction of the "International broadcasts and voting". I tried to look up if there was any information about ratings in the article, but it was not easy to find, as I wasn't sure where it could be in the Contents structure. We could create a "Reception" sub-section under "International broadcasts", and I think the info about accolades for the broadcast would fit better here. I can come up with a proposal to reflect this. Xelaxa (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if something isn't broken, then it doesn't need fixing; therefore I have to strongly disagree with your suggestion that there maybe more way to be concise and less ambiguous. Like I pointed out, the title covers "other awards", irrespective of who the awards are connected to, they are still covering the topic of any "other awards" - which is then subsequently sub-divided into the respective awards. It would be overzealous to make things "less ambiguous" by giving each award a standalone section in their own right. It was established during the layout RfC a couple of years ago, via consensus, that it would be logical to amalgamate any thing to do with the receipt of an award into one topic title - which is the current title. At the end of the day, we are dealing with the subject matter of "awards", it does not matter what the award is about - they are still an award. To split them into sections of "unofficial" and "official" is just an obscure thing to do. People are intelligent enough to differentiate between an "unofficial award" and an "official award", even with them all housed into one subject title of "other awards". The fact that this section has mainly been used for OGAE etc does not bear relevance here, nor has it ever done. The reason the section is called "other awards", is because the main ward issued is to the winner of the Eurovision final itself. So we could not call this section "awards" as that would cause confusion to a reader who is unfamiliar about Eurovision. In regards to the ratings, it was suggested in the GA review to move this information to the broadcasting section, as it hold more due weight to that section. Placing it elsewhere would make it undue and irrelevant. I would not support giving this Ondas Awards a standalone section in its own right, and strongly feel its current location within the "other awards" section is sufficient and within due weight of its subject matter. Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest to move the information about ratings out of the "broadcasting section". On the contrary, I'm trying to suggest to move the info about the Ondas Awards there in a similar way, because I think it holds more due weight to that section, and create a "Ratings and reception" sub-section there where there wouldn't be any kind of "Ondas Awards" standalone title. I do not support a standalone section for the Ondas in its own right. On the contrary, I would strongly disagree, and in fact I think the Ondas Awards are given more weight than necessary in the current layout. The Ondas Awards do not have an established link with ESC like the other awards have, the concession of this award this year is just reflective of the reception the broadcast got, in this case the reception it got from a proffesional jury. The problem I see is not "official" vs "unofficial at all, it's "pararell events to ESC, closely linked to ESC" vs. "tangential event to ESC". Ratings, critical response, professional accolades for ESC as a tv show, aspects of the reception it gets as a tv show, were not contemplated in the layout RfC a couple of years ago. I would thank you if you could check the two examples I brought in my previous comment. Maybe they reflect what I'm thinking much better than my own words. Xelaxa (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ondas Awards does not hold any due weight in the broadcasting section. That is all about the television networks who broadcast the Eurovision Song Contest. The receipt of an award based on the production of a show does has no bearing on that section whatsoever. And I'm sure many other project members would agree that the Ondas Award in its current "other awards" section is suitably and correctly placed. @Bilorv: as the GA review, would you agree that the mention of receiving such award is right in the "other awards" section? How's about asking other users, such as BabbaQ, CT Cooper, AxG, or Pickette - in their opinion, do they feel its current location within the "other awards" section is correct or not? Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of other editors would be very welcome, thank you Wesley Mouse for asking for third opinions. To further explain my position: The candidates that opt for the Marcel Beçenzon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are exactly the same candidates that opt for the main award issued to the winner of ESC. These are "other awards" in relation to ESC competition in a very literal way. The inclusion of an award for ESC as a tv production from a body with no established connection to ESC, with its own standalone subsection for this awarding body, breaks this precedent logic and gives this awarding body more weight than necessary. The relevance of the information about this particular Ondas award ESC 2014 received, if there is such relevance, comes from the fact that this a reflection of the reception ESC 2014 Grand Final (we forgot this bit so far) got as a production, a broadcast in its final form. The information can be put in a proper context of "reception to the broadcast" elsewehere, without giving the particular awarding body more due weight than necessary with a standalone title that is reflected in the Content table. Section and sub-sections covering "Bradcast and reception" or "Reception and ratings", encompassing ratings, critical reception and accolades, are very common in Wikipedia articles with certified quality about tv shows of different genres. The current layout for ESC edition articles lacks an analogous space covering this field of interest, and this is a tv show, apart from a contest in its own. Information about the Ondas and other potential accolades for ESC 2014 as a tv production could be mentioned in such a section or sub-section without any need for standalone titles for particular awarding bodies. "Ondas Awards" is not by itself an established field of interest in relation to ESC, unlike "Marcel Bezençon Awards" , "OGAE" and "Barbara Dex Awards", and a standalone "Ondas Awards" title would not be expected. Xelaxa (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Xelaxa, the dictionary definition of the word other is to refer to something that is different from, in additional to, or alternative of those specified. The dictionary definition of the word award is to refer to something that has granted an accolade for its merit achievement. The Marcel Bezençon Awards are awarded to an artists for their merit of achievement, and are an alternative to the main ESC winner's award. The OGAE Poll Award are awarded to an artist based on the opinion poll of OGAE club members - again in addition to the official ESC winner's trophy. The Barbara Dex Awards are a merit of achievement for an artist that wore the worst costume - again in addition to the main ESC winner's trophy. The Ondas Award has been given to the Eurovision Song Contest to show recognition for the production of the show - which again is covered by definition of the word "award" as it has been granted in merit of something, and is an alternative of those "awards" already mentioned in the section - thus is covered by the definition of the word "other". The fact that you are defining the term "other" in regards to being in relation of the ESC competition is over-definition and looking too deeply into the meaning of a word. Any general reader would see the section 'Other Awards' as being exactly that, of a topic covering "awards" that are different from, in addition to, or alternative of the main ESC Winners Award (also known as "other"). The article examples you provide in an earlier comment are not exactly prime examples, as they have no relation nor similarities to this subject matter. Those are relating to television series, of which "reception and ratings" would be relevant. Although a section in the parent article Eurovision Song Contest for "Reception, ratings and viewing figures" would hold more weight, and ultimately allow us to mention any awards that the show production has received over the years, as well as provide a list on annual global viewing figures - similar to how the parent article for the Brit Awards has (as seen at Brit Awards#Viewing figures). Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that:
  1. Including the Ondas Awards in the "Other Awards" section may be misleading, as the other awards there are all awards specific to the competition, rather than other bodies which have given awards to the competition.
  2. Putting the Ondas Awards in a "Reception" section would not necessarily be helpful as it might not be where one would expect to find it.
  3. The "195 million viewers" figure would fit better under a "Reception" section, but one should not be created just on that basis. It's still fine under "International broadcasts and voting". (Mildly tangentially, I did also suggest briefly in the GA review that ratings information could be expanded beyond that lone sentence. A larger paragraph discussing viewing figures would be more likely to require a "Reception" section than the short line currently existing.)
So I'm fairly neutral on the subject, which is why I haven't contributed to the discussion before. Is there any chance a concise sentence or two could be added somewhere in the "Other Awards" section to show clearly that "these awards run parallel to the competition, but this one has been awarded to the competition"? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Thank you very much. At this point, I would be satisfied if such a sentence was introduced in the "Other awards" section. @Wesley Mouse: One of the examples I gave was not but a television series, but an awards ceremony (the 86th Academy Awards), which has a "Ratings and reception" section encompassing ratings and awards to the ceremony telecast. Anyway, I do think ESC can be treated as any other tv show in many aspects, because it is a tv show fundamentally. I like your idea for a "Reception, ratings and viewing figures" in the parent article. Xelaxa (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support a sentence being included to differentiate between the award for the actual television show versus awards related to the contest for the time being. But if another section can be created that can better house this information as well as ratings information, then that should definitely be considered. Pickette (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Stupid internet connection logging me out whilst I was in mid-sentence) Anyhow, yes having a reception and rating section within the main parent article at Eurovision Song Contest would be a good idea, and at least could help to bring that article back to its former FA status. Plus we'd be able to expand on other awards that the contest has received over the years, plus show the annual viewing figures - which would then aid us on the annual articles when we make reference to such viewing statistics. As for a supporting sentence within the "other awards" section to help differentiate between the award for the actual television show versus awards related to the contest for the time being is also a good idea - and one that I had tried to say we should be doing - although I cannot think of how it would be best worded. If anyone has any suggestions for that, then I'd be more than happy for it to be added without hesitation. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for a supporting sentence within the "other awards" section: The Marcel Bezençon Awards, the OGAE voting poll and the Barbara Dex Awards are awards that were contested by the entries competing at the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, in addition to the main winner’s trophy. In contrast, the Ondas Awards have honoured the production of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 itself in one of their categories.. Feel free to make any change you think is necessary or convenient. Xelaxa (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that wording, although I would like to clarify that such wording would not contravene the no original research guidelines. @CT Cooper: as an established editor and administrator on Wikipedia - would such phrasing be safe? Or would we need to add the citations from each respective awards sub-section to provide verification? Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought a pretty simple factual statement of that nature will be a helpful clarifier for the reader and won't contravene WP:NOR. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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:

Comments[edit]

Infobox[edit]

  • Is there a reference for the presenters? For the articles on the past two years, it's been sourced to Eurovision Broadcasting Union articles; maybe this could be a reference.
This source is referenced in the infobox regarding who presented the show. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #20 describes Jon Ola Sand as "Executive Supervisor of the contest", so maybe that could be linked from the "Executive supervisor" parameter as a reference.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be a source for the executive producer and and host broadcaster.
Well done, is added. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the other 2 GA articles 2012 and 2013, the presenters have been cited within the infobox. However the Exec Supervisor and Exec Producer paramters have not used citations. They did previously, but were advised to remove them as they were not necessary. I'll add the source however for the presenters. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley Mouse, I have already added one for executive producer, so if you could do the rest that would be wunderbar. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonas Vinther: you haven't signed any of your comments using ~~~~, which you really should be doing, even though this is a GA review, we should still be following the talk page guidelines. Also we were advised by two different GA reviewers during the 2012 and 2013 reviews that it was not necessary to add citations for both the Executive Supervisor and Executive Producer in the infobox section. So I'm inclined to say that format should follow the same method and not cite them, in order to keep a uniform consistency throughout WikiProject Eurovision. Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonas Vinther and Bilorv, according to Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?, infoboxes should contain data that is already cited elsewhere in the article. Another words, the citations would be included in the main body of the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. That might be why the other reviewers removed citations from the infobox during their GAR in 2012 and 2013. Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's much like not using sources in the lead if the information is already cited in body text of the article. Well spotted, Wesley Mouse. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"infoboxes should contain data that is already cited elsewhere in the article." —- Yes, but the information in this case isn't written elsewhere in the article, let alone cited there. Jon Ola Sand isn't mentioned outside of the infobox. Neither is Pernille Gaardbo. So they need to either be discussed in more detail outside the infobox, with sources there, or we need sources for them placed in the infobox. Is there anything relevant to say about them, other than their roles as executive supervisors and producers? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Exec Supervisor is the same every year, until he or she steps down and a new supervisor is appointed by the EBU. It is only at times like that when the Exec Supervisor becomes noted within the main article body. So I suppose adding a citation for the supervisor in the box is more appropriate on this occasion. As for the Exec Producer, they are appointed each year by the host broadcaster (in this case DR). So more details about Pernille Gaardbo being appointed should ideally be within the main article and cited there. I'll quickly update that section, if that is OK with you Bilorv? Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and I've also added two images of venues that entered the bidding race, per your suggestion below. Picked those two, as they were the first to enter the race, plus one hosted Eurovision in 2001, whilst the other hosted the national selection event for 2013 (culminating towards Denmark's victory). I felt those were more notable for the subject and allusive too. Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

  • Is it worth including a picture of any other venues considered under the Bidding phase subsection?
That sounds like a really bad idea in my mind. The table would be very large and considering the article features many other long tables later on, I would say no. Currently there is a picture of the locations of all the candidate cities, which seems fine. Wesley Mouse agrees with me on this one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can open the link fine on my computer. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonas Vinther; the first one is a dead link, I tested it myself it directed to a 404 page. The second link is the working archive version. I already added it to the article earlier today (see my comment below). Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired the dead link. As for pictures of other venues, that is something that's never been raised before; although I do like the idea. As for the capacities, as far as I'm aware they've been sourced from the respective venue articles. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all the capacities in the table sourced somewhere?
Yes, all tables are sourced, but I can understand your confusion as they are sometimes placed in different and somewhat random places, but all are sourced. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonas Vinther, refer to my comment above in which I had mentioned about the capacities within the tables. Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

  • It was reported by the EBU that the 2014 Contest was viewed by a worldwide television audience of a record breaking 195 million viewers. This sentence doesn't seem to fit in the context of the paragraph — it threw me for a minute, because one sentence we're establishing jurors and the next it's talking about viewing figures. The previous two years' articles don't seem to have any relevant statistics in the articles, so I'm not sure where it should be put. It could be made into a new paragraph: additionally, the reference used seems to contain other potentially useful statistics (up from 180 million last year, 61 million viewers at any given moment etc.)
It was a reported "record-breaker" for the EBU in terms to viewing figures, that's why viewing figures have never been mentioned before. It was discussed this on the article talk page (now archived), and we couldn't decide which section it should be included in, but did agree that such fact regarding record-breaking viewing was notable for inclusion. Any suggestions which section it would suit best? Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved that into the broadcasting section, as it seems more appropriate to that, and is topical to the broadcasting theme. Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand why viewing figures have never been mentioned before and am glad that they are included here. I think they're much better suited to the broadcasting section, so thank you for moving them there. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents[edit]

  • The Reaction to Russia reference doesn't seem to back up cited facts regarding the final — in fact, the news article appears to have been written before the final took place. The latter citation should be replaced with something which does back up the stated facts about Russia's booing in the final. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The booing occurred both in the semifinal and grand final. The news article may be referring to the semifinal, hence its publication prior to the final. Not sure if there are sources to verify the final, although there are YouTube videos uploaded on the official Eurovision channel that would be able to verify both. Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, try here for a much better source about Russia-related booing during results. (Also, Milonov's "hotbed of sodomy" quote mentioned in the link might warrant a mention somewhere under Incidents: a quick Google search shows other newspaper articles have mentioned it too.) As for booing after their performance, you could try YouTube as a last resort if there are no news articles mentioning it. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source from 'The Independent' is rather a good find. I've used that, and based on its content, have been able to expand details about the incident better, including the booing that occurred whenever Russia received votes. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participating countries[edit]

  • Are Marvi Vallaste and Marilin Kongo really notable enough to deserve redlinks? Articles for both singers have been created and deleted before. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable that I know of. Perhaps delink, or doing the old sneaky [[Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest|Marvi Vallaste]] and [[Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest|Marilin Kongo]]? Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

  • Where are the English translations sourced to?
  • The footnote for Latvia says it contains some Latvian phrases. I think the second and third footnotes make it clearer why the languages discussed are not important enough to be listed under the "Language" column ("there is one sentence", "the last line"). But for Latvia, I feel like "Latvian" could be listed along with English in the language column — could the footnote say there are occasional phrases in Latvian, there are Latvian phrases in part(s) X of the song or something similar?
  • "the suspense ended with the 34th vote" — is this not a bit biased? It would sound more neutral to me as, the winner had been determined by the 34th vote.

I'll try and review the rest of the article soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The project has a lot of multilingual members who are able to translate the song titles into English. Some I think also used Google Translator.
  2. I think it is safe to ass Latvian in the language column, and thus remove its footnote.
  3. I think whoever added the word "suspense" was getting a little overexcited themselves. I'll reword it now. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the song translations, is this not original research? (Everything else has been addressed, although I made one small edit here.) Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been classified as original research before, in the GA reviews for 2012 and 2013 articles, and also for the ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012 GA reviews. I'm sure the experienced GA reviewers at that time would have said if it were. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I've just checked WP:OR, and according to WP:TRANSCRIPTION, translating sourced material into English (in this case sourced foreign language songs into English), is not classified as original research. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the link to WP:TRANSCRIPTION. The English translations are fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry guys, I got myself involved with some FA and GA-projects these last two days, so have not been active in the review. I will from now on. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, thankfully you got me on-hand, and I'm pretty use to GA reviews by now (4 under my belt, including ESC2012 & 2013). And I've been working on improving the 2012 and 2013 articles for FA review. In fact, it looks like the Eurovision 2012 article could be on the verge of a promotion from GA to FA. I wouldn't be too surprised if this review is drawing to a close. Although I do need to check something with Bilorv; I've been improving articles from 2000 to 2013 by adding the official album information, and all that is left is to update this one. If it is going to cause a problem with the review (the stability part) then I'll hold back. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you've updated the album information anyway. It's looking good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I went bold and added it. Its part of an idea I had to add the Soundtrack details, similar to how film articles do - and they achieve FA quite quickly. The idea started with adding the information to the ESC 2012 article, which is now under FA review, and seems to be close to achieving this. Although some advice given at that review has made me wonder more about this article. According to them, the lead should not have citations. And the incidents section should be repositioned so that it follows the "other countries" part. DO you think we should follow procedure on this article, especially whilst it is under GA review? Or leave it for now, and then do those alterations post-GA, so that the article may proceed for FA review at a later date? Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the moving of the Incidents section in the 2012 article; move it in this one if you want, but I think it's fine in either position. As for citations in the lead, I'd leave them there for now — there should be no problem with citations in the lead, but there's not always a need for them. The lead is usually the last part of the article I review, though, so I might change my mind when I've read it properly. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoreboard and Other countries: everything looks fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other awards[edit]

  • I don't think reference #114 needs to be included in the "OGAE result" column.
  • For the Barbara Dex award, could we not have a sentence similar to the other two awards (e.g. The top five results were as follows:), and put the reference there instead of in every column?

I'll try and get through the rest of the review today. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasts and voting; Official album; See also and External links: Good.

Lead[edit]

  • following Emmelie de Forest's win in the 2013 contest in Sweden with the song "Only Teardrops". — is this really relevant enough to be put in the second sentence of the article? Surely Forest's win in the previous year shouldn't be mentioned before Wurst's win this year.
  • three times more than what was expected and were furthermore highly accused of cases of nepotism within the organisation. I think the last clause should be a separate sentence — Organisers were also accused of cases of nepotism within the organisation. I also think nepotism is obscure enough a word to be linked to Wiktionary.
  • The first three sentences of the last paragraph seem like they contain far too much detail: it could be shortened to San Marino and Montenegro both qualified for the final for the first time.
  • I think the Incidents section deserves a bit of mention — maybe say Jokes made about Wurst have sparked controversy. and/or Russia were booed several times during the contest.
  • Also, now that the article includes a section on the album, it might be worth adding a sentence about the album into the lead.
  • Is everything in the lead mentioned later in the article? (Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article) This sentence never seems to be expanded upon: With the polarising nature of LGBT rights in western and eastern Europe, Wurst's status as a drag queen has made some consider Austria's victory in the contest as a political statement as well. Neither is the budgeting concerns: 112 million kroner is never used again, although the original budget of 40 million kroner is mentioned under Location. "Nepotism" and ref #11 aren't used outside the lead, either.
  • Referencing: I think many of the refs in the lead could be removed, while other might be best staying, or can at least stay for the time being. I would remove:
  1. Ref #1 (sentence is summary of sourced statements in Location)
  2. Ref #2 (used in infobox)
  3. Refs #12 to #17 (all used later; last 4 especially don't look very good aesthetically)

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to respond to each point separately.
  1. Yes it is relevant. Emmelie's win is what brought the contest to Denmark in the first place. The rules of the contest is that the winning country goes on to hosting the following year's event. However, there have been some occasions were the winning country has rejected to host the following year due to financial costs. This method of noting how the contest has come to the host city, is something that has been done on all articles, and has not been an issue before, as noted in the 2012 GA and 2013 GA reviews.
  2. Whereabouts would you suggest the sentence be moved to? Linking to nepotism would be wise too.
  3. I'll work on shortening those.
  4. I agree, some brief mention of the key incidents, such as jokes on Wurst, and Russia's booing, would be good for the lead.
  5. And I also agree that now there is an album section, that this too should be mentioned.
  6. The issue of users adding content directly into the lead section, without paying attention to what the lead should be used for, has been a long-term problem for Project Eurovision, and something that needs to be addressed with urgency. If something appears in the lead, that is not mentioned in the main article body, then I'm inclined to say remove it, or expand on it further within the main body.
  7. I'll "clean-up" those refs.
Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on some of the matters mentioned above, and reshuffled the lead around slightly, to give coherent flow, and based on some comments/suggestions at the previously mentioned FA review. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments.

  1. Okay.
  2. I'd just leave it after the "three times more than expected". I just think it's a bit of a long sentence and the "were furthermore" feels a bit grammatically dodgy. Even just the word "they" before "were furthermore" would help.
  3. Thanks.
  4. Looks good.
  5. Done.
  6. I'm inclined to prefer expansion rather than removal of content that looks quite good, but it can still pass for GA without being comprehensive, so you don't *have* to expand upon everything. I'd say it's broad enough now.
  1. Okay: it looks much better now.

Everything's been addressed, and I think the article definitely meets all six GA criteria. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can still bring a doubt I expressed in the general talk page. It was announced yesterday that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of the 2014 Ondas Award in the International TV production category.Premios Ondas Official Site, Eurovision.tv, DR.dk, Esctoday.com. These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are very well-known in Spain and the ceremony is nationally televised. I'd like to include a small mention in the article, but I don't know where information about this award, or other possible accolades for the contest as a production, should go. The Eurovision Song Contest 2011 broadcast won a Rose D'or award for Best Live Event; in the article it is mentioned in the lead only. Xelaxa (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xelaxa:, so sorry for this, but the GA review has now closed. On the positive side, it does mean we can now discuss the matter back at the article talk page, but we will have to air on caution as to not cause too much disruption to this newly promoted article. It would be devastating if it were to be demoted so soon after promotion, all because of post-GA alterations. Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Final running order screwed up[edit]

Could anybody with rollback privileges rollback the edits made by the guy with the IP as a name to the last edit by Wesley Mouse ASAP? He messed the running order and points up. Thanks!

--PootisHeavy (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PootisHeavy: I've rolled back for you. Wes Mouse ✒ 06:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014&oldid=1207151273"