Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

---

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Wikilink European Broadcasting Union under "At Eurovision" Interlanglink Fokas Evangelinos Prose is clear of typos and understandable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with guidelines; the table integration for voting at the bottom is well-done and appropriate.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are properly formatted and placed in a 'References' section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources are from news sites like Eurovision Fun, ESCToday, or EBU; all of these are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the context of the contestm before the contest, at the contest, and voting results; all of these are appropriate.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There's definitely opportunity to be too detailed here, but the article is quite well-summarized. Nicely done!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image is labeled under CC. All the flagicons are good too.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One image is appropriate and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

Grk1011 I am very impressed by this article, it's well done! See to my minor things above, and this will be ready for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi MyCatIsAChonk. Thank you for the review! I have made the changes you requested and performed a final copyedit. Please let me know if I missed anything! Grk1011 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.