Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pass - this is now listed as a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• There are no edit wars and no substantial vandalism. There's significant ongoing article building which is a little surprising considering that the article was nominated over four months ago, but nothing that concerns me, or that should interfere with the GA process (which not infrequently results in some article changes due to the GA review itself anyway). SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Has an appropriate reference section. (This is always a pass!) SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Images are all appropriately copyright tagged. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. There is a tendency toward long sentences, which can be a little tiring for the reader, and the use of commas is sometimes a bit uncertain (but that's the nature of commas!). There are some short paragraphs which may need attention. But, on the whole, the standard is high, and any concerns are minor and a matter of opinion and can be sorted out during the review. SilkTork (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• No indications of original research. Article remains faithful to those sources checked. SilkTork (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Article is neutral, making no unbalanced claims. Considering the popularity, cultural weight, and importance of the competition the coverage and tone is admirably and reassuringly sober. Apart from the length (which I will tackle soon) the article presents as authoritatively encyclopaedic. SilkTork (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Article is liberally cited to a range of reliable sources. SilkTork (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• No copyvio issues. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Images and captions are relevant and appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Focus. Article is 65kb, though that is acceptable for the nature of the subject, and no section goes into excessive detail. SilkTork (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Major aspects are covered. SilkTork (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Query

• Not a big issue by itself (I wouldn't fail the review just on this, but it would be a contributing factor if there were a number of other such minor issues), but the layout of the images and other media could be tidied up. The guidance is that images are preferred on the right. We used to have a guideline that images should either be all on the right, or alternating right and left. These days a staggered presentation is allowed, though the preference is still that images should be on the right. I'm not seeing a justification for the image of The Serbian delegation to be forced to the left. And if Logan is placed on the left because he's looking to the right, then so should be Sitnik and Dana. Better to be consistent and neater and have everyone on the right. The 2016 grand final image, because of it's size and proportion, might be better placed in a wide image template: example: [1]. Some consistency in the image sizes is also desirable, per our image layout guidelines. We have minor inconsistencies, such as in the Participation section were one image is sized 1.6 while another is sized 1.5. SilkTork (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Do we need two similar images in Hosting? Such duplication is discouraged, and the use of the second image pushes into the following section, which is also discouraged. The second of the two images, opening act in Germany, appears the more appropriate image as the File:ESC 2014 Copenhagen semi 1 jury.JPG image is blurry and poor quality - it is difficult to understand who is on stage and why. SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• There are two images in Rehearsals and press conferences, between which some text squeezing is taking place, which is an indicator that there are too many images in that section. Is the image of the performer rehearsing adding much encyclopedic value? SilkTork (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I understand the reason for the inclusion of the Corry Brokken performing with an orchestra image, however it is not a clear image as the figures are quite remote. Is there a clearer image of a performer with a live orchestra? The caption could also be clearer, indicating that since 1972 the music was no longer required to be live. Perhaps: "Until 1972 the backing music had to be performed live (Corry Brokken at the 1958 contest)". SilkTork (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• "the contest is also commonly referred to in English by the abbreviations 'ESC' " - I've not come across the use of ESC to describe the contest. The source is not active, and a Google search threw up many results, only a few of which were related to the contest. Just how "common" is this usage? I can see that in some documents that Eurovision Song Contest is sometimes abbreviated to ESC for later use, which is understandable, but would people commonly refer to Eurovision as "ESC" to each other? As in "Did you see ESC last night?" SilkTork (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• "The contest has received criticism for its artistic quality, spanning ethnic and international styles, and claims regarding a geopolitical element in the voting system and the competing entries, with varying relations between both participating countries and other territories' broadcasters." That's an awkward sentence. I've read it a few times now and I'm not quite sure what the intention is. I suspect there are four aspects which have been crowded together: 1) criticism of the the artistic quality 2) a comment or criticism on the range (or type?) of music styles 3) claims of a geopolitical element in the voting system 4) varying relations between participating countries and their broadcasters. I think it would be worth putting each of those aspects into separate sentences for clarity. SilkTork (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork, just to explain and see/suggest, as the editor who initially added the criticism paragraph: My intention is two aspects, what you point out as 2 relates to 1, and 4 to 3, though I understand the confusion and thank you for this comment.

Perhaps one sentence describing the artistic criticism as: "revolving around" (or "in relation") "'to the span and mix of mainstream and ethnic music styles". Can also be added: "and regarding highlighting pyrotechnics, choreographs and accessories when compared to singing qualities." Enables further clarity and further lead-specification to what the musical-"Criticism" section details. In turn, then, one sentence for the: "geopolitical element revolving around the varying relations...".

On the other hand, I can also suggest one sentence for my intended two aspects, like this: "The contest has received criticism for it's artistic quality and claims for geopolitical element in the voting" or something similar. In turn, that enables a stand-alone sentence for: "The contest spans mainstream and ethnic music styles" as it's general musical nature, also possibly attached to the contest's "kitsch appeal" later at the same paragraph.And there's anyway separate sentence specifying controversies, as withdraws and censorship.

So I leave this for both your consideration, and if Sims2aholic8 wants to edit in either of these two ways, or if both of you still see four different aspects suitable for four sentences. * And apologies if I should have responded at the bottom of the entire review; I'v read the GA-comment procedure but didn't see info on that, thus assumed below this specific section is best. אומנות (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

All comments are welcome and helpful. I have moved your comment so it comes directly after my query. SilkTork (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know I can even put the comment right under a specific pointer, thank you for the move and your welcoming reply. אומנות (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Earwig's CopyVio tool has thrown up this concern of copyvio from the official Eurovision website: [2]. The wording of concern in the article is The "European Broadcasting Area" is bounded on the west by the western boundary of Region 1, on the east by the meridian 40° East of Greenwich and on the south by the parallel 30° North so as to include the northern part of Saudi Arabia and that part of those countries bordering the Mediterranean within these limits. In addition, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine and those parts of the territories of Iraq, Jordan and Syrian Arab Republic lying outside the above limits are included in the European Broadcasting Area. - in the source it is The "European Broadcasting Area" is bounded on the West by the western boundary of Region 1, on the east by the meridian 40° East of Greenwich and on the South by the parallel 30° North so as to include the northern part of Saudi Arabia and that part of those countries bordering the Mediterranean within these limits. That is also the reason why for example Israel can take part in the contest. / In addition, Iraq, Jordan and that part of the territory of Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Ukraine lying outside the above limits are included in the European Broadcasting Area. There is a defence that purely factual short descriptions can be awkward to change, like "The Sun rises in the east and sets in the west"; however, that is a lot of text in which the wording is exactly the same, so I'm not sure the short factual defence would apply. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the only copyvio issue that I could detect. SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Now resolved. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this on! I've made some comments on your suggestions below. Please reach out if there's anything more you require. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have implemented the majority, if not all, of the picture requests above, replacing where necessary with new or cropped examples which should hopefully answer those points above.
• On the 'ESC' point, the reference was recently deprecated it appears; I have since added an archived version of this webpage which states the 'ESC' abbreviation and also included an additional ref where appropriate for a live page detailing "Logo & Artwork". It is not typically an abbreviation I would personally use in speech in real life, for that 'Eurovision' is much more common, but I believe it is a fairly common short-hand for documents and also online, particularly when referring to a particular year, e.g. ESC 1974.
• For the single copyvio issue, the reasoning behind its inclusion was principally that the official wording from the ITU for the boundaries of the European Broadcasting Area was more succinct and easy to understand than trying to explain it ourselves, hence the use of the quote template. If this remains an issue I'm happy to draft my own wording to describe the boundaries in more simple language. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Doh! I was only looking at Earwig's CopyVio tool - I didn't notice that it was a quote! I see, though, that you've now tidied that up anyway. SilkTork (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• For the awkward criticism sentence, I've had a go at redrafting this sentence to make it a bit more legible, as well as adding in some extra ideas from the "Criticism" section. Please let me know how this reads, happy to take another go at this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "Criticism" looks well, with that thanks Sims2aholic8 for showcasing both artistic and political aspects I initially meant together as one sentence; then that stand alone sentences to detail both (which you also back then kept rephrasing at the continuation of that paragraph, and as you see what remained from my original wording came out awkward haha :-) ). Also appreciate you took consideration for my preference to reference the emphasis on staging (as another criticism aspect rather than artistic quality) from the section, and I think you put that central-important aspect also in clear and concise manner in the lead. To me it altogether really looks swell now.

For the Broadcasting-Area copyvio, it also bothered me few years ago, way before you started working on the article as it was already there. I also think, even style-wise (even if not breaching citation rules) that it should be introduced in a more independent manner to break the prolonged citation. I also like to use the method of rephrasing to add independent explanations in order to "break" even much smaller citation chunks; particularly this long and complex challenging citation, but if you're up to try, I'm sure you'll be able to eventually make it look better with your rich vocabulary abilities. You've already successfully worked on equally and more complex stuff than this. אומנות (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the changes in the lead to the criticism aspects. I now have just three aspects of the GA review to complete - MoS, Broad coverage, and Focus; these can be the trickiest to do, though Focus is usually fairly straightforward to identify, but can be difficult to resolve if material has to be cut or a sub-article created). Hopefully I should be done with the review in the next couple of days. SilkTork (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Focus/Article size. At 89kb the article is at the sort of length where we would consider splitting (see WP:SIZERULE). An argument against splitting would be that this is a very large topic which requires the sort of breadth and depth of coverage that is present. However, there are areas where we can look at content that may be overdetailed for this parent article, and could be moved to sub articles.

• The list of Host country alternatives could be moved to List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest leaving just the existing summary note of "A number of exceptions to this rule have occurred since, typically when the winning country had already hosted the event in the recent past]] with a link to the moved text in the sub article.
• Consider moving the table after "Each slogan used in the contest since 2002 is listed below:" in Eurovision_Song_Contest#Eurovision_logo_and_theme to List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest, with a link.
• Eurovision_Song_Contest#Rehearsals_and_press_conferences - this could reasonably be reduced by half to two paragraphs - it is a minor aspect of the topic (every event has rehearsals and press conferences, and it is rare to devote so much attempt to something rather run of the mill. Four paragraphs could put off the average reader from reading the section, while a pithy one or two informative paragraphs might be more tempting.
• Eurovision_Song_Contest#Political_controversies is quite lengthy. There are already two related split off articles. This is clearly an area of some interest, but for the general reader the length and density of that section would likely be off putting. My suggestion here, given that there is clearly a lot of interest and material, is that a sub-article is created on Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest, which would incorporate material from Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest and Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest (just the leads from each article should be sufficient), plus the entirely of Eurovision_Song_Contest#Political_controversies which could be expanded upon in the new article, and a two or three paragraph summary left in this article. Some aspects of the "Political" and geographical voting section could also be incorporated in the new Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest article, and perhaps that section reduced a little in this article.
• LGBT visibility is certainly an important and interesting aspect of Eurovision - that is another area where a sub article could be created - LGBT visibility in the Eurovision Song Contest, with the section here reduced perhaps by half.

This is quite a lot of work I am suggesting, and the suggestions are up for discussion - they are not demands I am making, but areas where, as an independent eye, it appears the article and topic as a whole would benefit. I am quite happy to listen to arguments for keeping those sections as they are; I am also prepared to help out on making the changes if agreed they need doing. SilkTork (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the above. Given that the article is quite lengthy, the sections Anniversary shows and special events and Spin-offs and related shows could also be considered for trimming as they are not about the main topic, but related topics. I was looking at them in terms of the Layout section of the MoS criteria, because both sections contain very short sub-sections, which is an issue per MOS:OVERSECTION as they "clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose". Given there is a dual concern with those two sections it would be appropriate to look into removing the sub-section titles and reducing the remaining weight of both sections. Possibly a judgement call, but I would consider "Cultural influence" to be a more significant and encyclopaedic aspect of Eurovision than the spin-offs, so reducing the Spin-off section to an amount less than or at least equal to that section would seem appropriate; but - as I say - that's just on off the cuff judgement, not based on any research. SilkTork (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have merged these two sections and reduced the prose considerably, and I have also replaced the image to a more recent example that tells the same message. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the new section, and potentially on whether you believe further reductions could be called for. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's very good. I've just been through it to see what I could do to reduce it further and made some copy edits to reduce a bit of fluff, but essentially I think it's good. I have no problem with that at all. I think you've done well. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now created two separate articles on Political controversies and LGBT visibility per your suggestion above, and reduced the corresponding section in this article considerably. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Broad coverage. In my wider reading I note from the EB that groups were first allowed in 1971 - this is not mentioned in our article. Some detail on artist eligibility (solo in 1956, duos also allowed from 1957, groups from 1971) in the Song and artist eligibility section would be useful. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• A point of clarity. In our article it is mentioned that ABBA, Celine Dion, and Julio Iglesias performed at Eurovision, but it is not made clear that it is regarded that their careers were launched by the contest. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• A separate issue. I then looked for already famous artists who performed at Eurovision, such as Blue, Cliff Richard, Lulu, Katrina & The Waves, Engelbert Humperdinck, Bonnie Tyler, etc, and they are not mentioned. It's a tricky area, but as the acts I mention were for UK entrants, and I'm from the UK, I can recall the level of interest that was stirred at the time, and is still mentioned, by those acts performing in Eurovision - particularly as - apart from Lulu, none of them won! I think this is an awkward one, as the article could get clogged with "famous acts who performed at Eurovision" for little value, and there would need to be a value judgement made as to who qualifies as "famous". But perhaps a sentence such as "As well as being responsible for launching the international careers of acts such as Abba, Celine Dion and Julio Iglesias, acts who already had international careers, such as Cliff Richard, Lulu, and Bonnie Tyler, have also performed in the contest", could work. The artists noted are just examples. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Those two are the only issues I have with broad coverage. Both are fairly minor compared to the overall coverage. SilkTork (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead can be a good base point for including other more very successful artists under the detailed section, as based on List of best-selling music artists which reflects 75 million certified units sales and above; only Celine, Julio, ABBA, and Olivia managed that. So perhaps the section can extend on artists with dozens of million sales, more specifically at least 10 million certified units (as I think there are many-many artists who managed 1 to 9 million)?

It will also interest you to know that Cliff Richard is indeed mentioned in the best-selling article and is claimed to sell 250 million on his article, albeit doesn't have at least 20% certified units to make the list. I didn't find now info on their article, but believe or recall, that Lulu and Bonnie Tyler also make the 10 million cut.

Your suggestion can maybe also be extended to composers and which made impact and nominated to Academy awards (also stage performers in some cases), especially Andrew Lloyd Webber comes to mind, who was also on the piano on the contest's stage, and was basically nominated to all possible Academy awards in all fields - Oscars, Grammy, Tony and what not... also add my Israeli pride Ofra Haza, on the merits of US achievements on music charts and Grammy nominee. :-)

Baccara has one of the all-time best-selling singles, I think Mary Hopkin too, Bonnie Tyler also nominated for three Brit Awards and three Grammy Awards! I also add Annie Schmidt, writing the very first song to perform at Eurovision, considered by historians in the "Canon of Dutch History", mentioned alongside figures as Vincent van Gogh and Anne Frank. I pointed her on the Hebrew Wikipedia on the 1956 article myself.

Also extremely prominent figures in the French Canon - Serge Gainsbourg (as composer/writer), Françoise Hardy, and Nana Mouskouri prominent all over the world in the Chanson style.

So in general, such prominent singers UK sent to Eurovision especially in the 1960s and 1970s, and those French flavor figures alongside possibly other nationalities with such achievers, including composers and writers. I would love to see something like an additional paragraph of few sentences mentioning such figures, with pointing they were nominated for specific academy awards and (without specifying songs names) like, that they had best selling singles.

This will require perhaps changing the "Winners" section title, but can be added simply as "Winners and Successful Artists" or just "Successful Artists" as indicating success either by winning Eurovision or generally in their career, if accepted to add such more artists along with those UK singers personas.

Also at this comment's chance, just pointing I thought the "Slogans" table could used being reduced to bullet points, divided to 2-3 columns and eventually didn't get to that section to suggest it on the talk page, but I definitely agree it's just best to move it to the "Hosts" article. אומנות (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I have now expanded the "winning artists" section into what is now "notable artists/songs", with more details on non-winning artists, both unknown before the contest and already well established. I tried to diversify the names as best I can so that they weren't all UK artists. I would be quite interested to hear thoughts on its length currently, and whether there's any scope for changes. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Some good ideas. I wasn't aware that Gainsbourg was involved as a writer. That's really significant, because he's such a respected and serious artist, not the sort of person one would expect to be involved in an ephemeral pop contest. That kind of shows that some countries, well France at least, took the contest quite seriously at some point. Seriously as an art competition, that is. Countries do take it seriously today, but not for reasons of art. There are, as the article explores, political, cultural, commercial, and promotional aspect to the show today which sort of puts the art of song writing somewhat in the background. I expect Gainsbourg's song would have been deliberately naughty, as he was such a radical figure! SilkTork (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the Poupée de cire, poupée de son article (his winning song from 1965) and you'll see you're that not far off! He also wrote two others, about surviving a bomb attack and overcoming the prejudices of skin colour, so he certainly didn't shy away from the deep stuff either! I've now added a brief mention covering some well-known competing songwriters, alongside Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Pete Waterman. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you "SilkTork" for your appreciative feedback. :-) I looked yesterday to see if both of you saw within the replies exchanges, and so was happy today for Sims2aholic8 further implementations, and both your kind responses, to contain my thoughts here too. Earlier I commented for the lead without noticing this. Also wanted to say about "Poupée de cire", quite naughty; further - Gainsburg's duet Je t'aime... moi non plus ... :)

I started doing some deep research for which I still have some reservations though and would like to take upon your will too, "Sims2aholic8", to discuss this bit further and just 2 additional artists examples. It's some artists checks+comparisons also with record-sales base, but feeling bit ill still, can't get to finish working on yet. In the meantime, wanted to respond and ask. אומנות (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you אומנות and please do share your ideas! It's a hard line to tread which artists should be mentioned, and we don't really want it to become a huge list of famous/semi-famous artists that have competed, especially given the article is already over 3,000 words above that recommended for FA, but more than happy to take onboard further thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand Sims2aholic8; it's not something big to add (just searching took some time and detailed to explain, also was a bit ill); rather, it's for bit more other-nationalities flavor for just same 4 of the artists I mentioned + 3/4 additional, 1 of them even composer – in turn will balance unknown/successful both artists + composers – compared to UK artists.

And, a suggestion I further thought of yesterday – different sources for certified, minimum & maximum sales estimations, then enables generalization to "dozen/hundred millions sales". This will: 1) Back up from all directions per problematic different publishes with further certified vs. estimated complexity; 2) Simplify for most focal intention here – the huge success; 3) Thus reduce words for FA criteria you wanna evaluate later.

In more detail, for the sales figures – I think too you made a smart choice basing on the bestselling article for ABBA, Julio, Celine and Olivia. With that, they also appear there per certified sales, and on the other hand here based on estimations and phrased for the other 3 (except ABBA) as factual "sold". What's more, while I saw some sources you used, very current from 2020/21, the sources I checked on "Best Selling Artists" are also from 2019-2020 for all 4 except Julio (2016). And over there for ABBA, estimations of 100-150 million and compared to your 380 million source. Eventually, all 4 artists are certified for dozens of millions; even Celine with 137.2 million certification, can still therefore count to dozens and not several hundreds. Also, all on that article have estimations between 100 and 200 million, so can be generalized as like, that those four has "dozens of million sales with estimations for at least 100 million.". And then keep describing their achievemnts on 4 different sentences. And even if that wouldn't be a problem now under GA review, maybe it can be a problem for FA as SilkTork pointed it needs a group of editors, and which can even pick on every comma and dot. Anyway this way you condense focus on general huge success, reduce wording, and cover yourself for these 4 artists.

Okay, so now I like to further address few artists. To not make my comment longer, I'v already added Nana with edit summary to the article. However, feel free to revert but if you could then also explain if you think it doesn't feat. The thing is also that the lead mentions "boosting international career for several artists", and you also pointed in previous comment you included yet-known singers however it only includes already successful ones. So I really think it can do with adding such and anyway in a different sentence which won't clog the already successful list. So also suggest Alla Pugacheva, Goran Bregović and Ofra Haza who also add Eastern Europe and West Asia flavor. Eventually, for considerably successful artists, the ratio is/was 5-UK:3-other-individual nationalities, and for composers - 2-UK:1-other. That's also why it can benefit looking at the base of like 10 million sales, and Academy Awards nominations (mainly US but perhaps others), enabling reference to future successful artists:

• Lara Fabian with 13 million sales (List of best-selling Belgian music artists), as future-success artist.
• Ofra Haza who herself sold few million records maybe more than 10 million, Grammy-nominated and 2-3 of her songs even positioned at the year-end top 100 in several countries (like top 100 for 2 songs of hers in 1988 & 1989 year-ends in Italy). Also one of the pioneers in World and fusion Music, and to popularize the genre. Saw some articles yesterday, can post later if you want. So another future-famous.
• Francois Hardy was a fashion icon for the whole 1960s decade, and also one of the pioneers in the French "Ye-Ye" movement, as well as a French Pop icon. I found sources, but for now just point this to comment already. Can also be considered future famous.
• Patricia Kaas also already famous in 2009 Eurovision, with overall 17 million sales and surely most of them before her "relatively" recent Eurovision, also hugely popular in several countries including Russia.
• Annie Schmidt received the Hans Christian Andersen Award, and also Austrian academy award, and was translated to several languages, even Japanese, so her books are global; all that besides being studied in schools and an icon in Netherlands, and considered the greatest Dutch writer of the whole 20th century. And how cool is it that she wrote (not composed, just wrote) the first ever song to perform on the Eurovision stage (also relating specifically to her literate skills), which I believe is a further point and interest to mention here in the Eurovision context. Also, as another female compared to all male-composers listed (also those who wrote 2 winning entries are all males).
• Annie Schmidt + Goran Bregović, anyway will join the separate paragraph currently containing only 3 composers. Annie Schmidt + Francois Hardy, an example showing prolific figures in other fields besides music, for Eurovision personas. And Lara Fabian, Ofra Haza and Francois Hardy can have therefore a separate sentence. It's only Patricia Kaas and maybe Alla Pugavheva that add to the longer "considerably successful" list. You can also break the clogging of the relatively longer "considerably successful" with highlight UK, to refer to it as "a notable number of UK artists had considerable success..." then point the UK names here, and then continue to describe: "Already considerably successful from other nationalities include....".
• So overall these few additional criteria (Academy, at least 10 million also for future stars, pioneers or developers in other fields) adds variation also for east Europe and west Asia, still keeps UK highlighted as apparently the country who sent most successful singers (as it still weighs like 40% compared to other nationalities like 60%), with 1-2 names for each of the other nations. And these two criteria still prevent more clogging in the future as there aren't many participants with such achievements. Also for the next years most singers are young and new discoveries, also most composers and writers. I still didn't check for Alla Pugacheva exact achievements, and for Annie Schmidt found just few and difficult sources spreading her above info, also for Goran Bregovitch I didn't check. But wanted to comment already. And apologies to both of you that it took me 2 days, even now it took me time to complete this comment, after preparing most of it before implementing Nana Mouskouri. So that's it for this, and sorry if I held back some works and the review, I know you both want to progress with this, and thank you for your patience.
• Just another thing which can reduce wording Sims2aholioc8, I think the names of songs under "Winners" can be removed, like Dana (1970), also pointing Linda Martin as the performer of 1992, and Celine's song. I removed both for Dana and Celine as they are located anyway within another artists which their songs names aren't mentioned. And such shortenings in other places will also further reduce the words. אומנות (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fail

• MoS issues are generally the toughest to meet. Some of the minor MoS issues have been cleaned up as we have gone along, but there are remaining Layout issues regarding MOS:OVERSECTION. There isn't much guidance on when to create a section, nor how long or short it should be, other than "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Generally, a section which is broken up rather frequently into a series of one or two paragraph subsections, does somewhat inhibit readability, and it can be a matter of editorial discussion as to exactly when and when not to subsection - I've mentioned above that the sections Anniversary shows and special events and Spin-offs and related shows have too many subsections drawing attention to rather minor largely off-topic issues such as Eurovision Choir and Songs of Europe. Anyone wishing to find out more about these topics would presumably already have done a search for them and found that we have articles on them. The section headers - Anniversary shows and Spin-offs, would guide those readers wanting to know about other such related shows to the appropriate sections without the need for the subheadings. So those two sections need sorting out. Other sections are rather less obviously need sorting out, though Rules does have rather too many two or one paragraph subsections. The Voting subsection is arguably important enough to warrant its own section. The Broadcasting subsection contains information about the rules, which seems a little dry and trivial, and of dubious interest to the reader of a general encyclopedia, plus some rather general information which may be better placed in other sections - such as "Several broadcasters in countries that are unable to compete have previously aired the contest in their markets..." may be better placed in the Participation section; and "The contest was first produced in colour in 1968...." may be better placed in Origins and history.

To summarise this long paragraph: Per MOS:OVERSECTION, some cleaning up of short sections is required. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. There is nothing in the lead about Anniversary shows and special events and Spin-offs and related shows, both of which are substantial sections. There is nothing about the Eurovision logo and theme, which has its own subsection. There is nothing about Event weeks, nor Rehearsals and press conferences, nor Receptions and parties, nor about Hosting - indeed, the whole of the Hosting section and its subsections is not adequately covered in the lead. The bulk of the Rules section is not adequately covered in the lead.

There is a fair amount of work to be done to get the article to comply with the requirements of WP:Lead. However, it can be done quite quickly. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is to combine together the concerns regarding Focus, Layout (oversection), and Lead, and to first tackle the Anniversary shows and special events and Spin-offs and related shows sections. I will put the article on hold while the work is done. I'm open to discussions on how best and/or how much work needs to be done. And I'm also willing to help out, or to remain uninvolved as you wish. Just let me know. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Lead requires that information in the lead is also in the main body. In the sentence: "the longest-running annual international televised music competition and one of the world's longest-running television programmes", the first part is mentioned in the main body, but the second part ("one of the world's longest-running television programmes") is not, and that part is not sourced either. I checked on List of longest-running television shows by category, as I thought it might be listed there with a cite, but it's not. SilkTork (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I couldn't find "the world's most watched non-sporting events every year" in the main body. SilkTork (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fair point, apologies for overlooking this. I have now added these points to the Origins and history section with relevant refs and would appreciate your view on their reliability. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources are appropriate and reliable. Though I suspect Varsity took its information from Wikipedia, as the wording is the same as found in List of most-watched television broadcasts from before the Varsity article was published ;-) - is there another source which talks about non-sporting? SilkTork (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! It was also covered in the EBU press release but I have now added a further ref from Billboard. I have also expanded the lead with sections which were previously not covered, which hopefully will cover most of your issues on that front. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8, The lead must be up to four paragraphs. That's also why I added then that Criticism and Inspiration in culture aspects as one paragraph, to complete to overall four. Technically, from the seven you split, you can easily join 6# & #7 (anyway formerly attached) to #5; even though you added the Junior Eurovision bit, still will be shorter than the current 2nd rules-paragraph.

Skim-reading the lead details, looks that hosting and rules can be significantly condensed like using "50%-50%" terms or "equal weight" in the vote for juries and public.

To me it looked better as when "Origins and History"-related paragraph ("based on Sanremo, since 1956...") was introduced in the lead before the "Rules"-related one. As History introduces the roots and meaning, with the historical importance-context And as I said in the past, I don't know it that's a rule of thumb, but at least I personally prefer the content of the lead to follow the same order of the sections; especially here as the History lead-paragraph is much more literally-welcoming to the reader rather than the rules.

With that, SilkTork, I formerly added that the contest "Spawned and inspired other similar events", to reference in general. There are also "Young Musicians", "Dancers", though different from singing, still inspired by Eurovision Song Contest. Also "Sims2aholic8" and another editor further added another sentence before: "Several spin-off contests have since been developed with similar structures, both by the EBU and by other organisations." Although the new line also reads good to me: "the popularity...led to the creation of several similar events" but to point only one example, of "Junior Eurovision" seems to me of minor value especially following the plural intention of "several", unless pointing 3-4 examples for other contests or something of the sort. אומנות (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The short sections have been tidied up, so there is no longer a concern regarding MOS:OVERSECTION. There is just the lead to look at now, and then we're done. SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• While checking the copyright status of the images I noted that a few of them had issues, and that there were alternatives available. This is not a GA issue, and it is debatable as to which images are "better", but here are some which I noted, just for information. File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg appears confused and messy as it's a clumsy crop with part of a man's beard and collar floating in top right - File:ESC2016 winner's press conference 18.jpg is one of a number of alternatives which clearly shows the trophy, but in a more natural and encyclopaedic setting. File:Michael Flatley cropped.jpg is too closely cropped, giving it an awkward narrow appearance, and we have a background figure with half their head missing - File:Flatley alone cropped.jpg is a cleaner, more naturally proportioned crop. File:Calls for boycott Eurovision Song Contest 2019.jpg contains a lot of irrelevant detail - I have created a crop: File:Calls for boycott Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (crop).jpg. File:Eurovision Song Contest 1980 - Johnny Logan 4.jpg could be cropped to remove the distracting blurred head at the bottom. File:Ksenia Sitnik JESC 2005.jpg is perhaps a little too cropped - the original File:Ksenia Sitnik at the 2005 Junior Eurovision Song Contest (2).jpg is perhaps too wide - but a crop in between the two images might be more satisfactory. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I would suggest going through and unforcing the majority of the images - why is the image of Lys Assia forced bigger? Better to crop the image to focus on her - removing some of the unnecessary background, and present the image unforced so it matched the size of the other images, and was more in compliance with our MoS. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Here's an example of the image of Assia cropped, cleaned up, resized, and put in the article without forcing: [3]. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• Review on hold for an initial seven days to allow concerns regarding Focus, WP:Layout (MOS:OVERSECTION), and WP:Lead to be dealt with. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your input! Per above, I would very much like to call upon you as and when I have made substantial edits over the next couple of days. I would also like to hear your insight on how best to prepare this article following GA review for featured article; as a former featured article this has been my principle motivation since I began work on it many months ago, and hopefully the GA review will put this in a good position for further promotion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

FA reviews, same as GA reviews, vary according to who does them. Some FA reviews, like GA reviews, can be simply a series of minor copy edit points, though a FA review will generally also be accompanied by a few votes of support which are little more than "I like it", but are morale boosters. You may, however, encounter those who look at every cite and question if some of the sources are reliable, and those who look at the format of every cite to ensure that every comma and semicolon is in the right place. So a good preparation would be to look at every source to ensure it is reliable, and every citation to ensure that they are all formatted the same way, and that page numbers and publishers' details are given properly. It would also help to have someone from the Guild do a thorough copy edit. Because some FA reviewers only look at one aspect, like, say the images, you may find a reviewer who can be very exacting about the aspect they are looking at. I glance at the details for each image to ensure they have appropriate licensing information - if there is an obvious, simple error I will either fix it, or raise it at the GA review, or sometimes tag an image if the problem looks serious, but I don't delve too deeply into the licensing issues. A FA image reviewer might do that. As the images involved in this article are mostly straightforward, there shouldn't be any serious issues, but it would be worth checking them all yourself with a critical eye. Other than a closer attention to fine detail, particularly sentence construction and citation formatting, the main official difference between GA and FA is between "broad coverage" and "comprehensive", though that difference rarely comes up, because these days articles that are well prepared for GA tend to be fairly comprehensive anyway. I've known articles that have passed a decent GA review to go through a FA review with no problems. I've even known articles that have failed a GA review go through a successful FA review with no changes made. And I've known articles that easily passed a GA review be crucified mercilessly at FA. It really does depend entirely on who gets involved. The worse thing that can happen is hardly anyone gets involved and the review gets archived - because of that some FA nominators will notify a variety of people who may be interested in the topic to get involved in the review. You may wish to start collecting a few people who would be interested and willing to comment at a FA review. You may also find a Peer review to be helpful, though - as with GA and FA reviews, the quality and usefulness of those vary according to who (if anyone) gets involved. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision does A class assessments, that would also be worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good progress is being made on the remaining tricky areas. Size is still a slight issue as the article is still over 65K. Sometimes a topic requires that sort of size, and this may be the case. I'm not sure there is much that can be cut but I will have another read through. I'll look closely at the lead last, as the lead generally changes as work is being done during a GA review, but I just glanced at it, and it's looking good. The remaining area was broad coverage, and the Notable competing artists and songs section appears to have dealt with that quite nicely. I'll take a closer look later. Not sure about the title though - "competing" would already be implied, though I can see that the intention is to differentiate with those performers and songs that won. Hmm. Perhaps the parent section could be named "Winners and notable participants". The trophy sub-section is named Trophy presentation, though is as much about the trophy as the presentation, so that name could just be "Trophy". Hmm. Unless the trophy is particularly noteworthy, perhaps the two paragraphs could sit in the Winners section without a sub-heading? SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: Thanks for your continued help in improving this article, and your suggestions! I have implemented the above suggestions to the "Winners" section. I wanted to make a distinction between artists that had performed during the broadcast in a guest capacity as opposed to those that competed in the contest proper; perhaps I'm reading too much into this, so if you feel it is still rather self-evident without the inclusion of "competing" then happy to take that on too! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The "event weeks" refer to the weeks during which the contest takes place; the week in which the live shows are held and broadcast is typically referred to as "Eurovision week" by fans and the media." Could this be tidied up? I'm not sure what the difference is between "event weeks" and "Eurovision week". Is "event weeks" an internal description for the whole event, including the preparation? The term doesn't appear to be significant outside the Eurovision organisation. Could we rename that section "Preparations" to be clearer to the general reader what that section is about? SilkTork (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify, "event weeks" refers to the two week period that included rehearsals with the contest participants, press conferences, etc., whereas "Eurovision week" is the week in which the contest including semi-finals is held. Reading it back it seems to make more sense to not mention either by name, and I think presently that section describes the course of events well enough to relegate requiring that sentence as basically a description for terms that are barely used elsewhere in the article, so I've gone ahead and removed the sentence in question and made some slight modifications to better describe the course of events in the run-up to the contest, now renamed as "Preparations" per your suggestion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've had another go at trimming the prose. It's time consuming with small rewards, but can be done. A copy edit to remove duplicate words or phrases such as having both "stemmed from" and "initially" (they mean the same thing in context, so only one is need) or vague and unhelpful words such as "soon" (either put in the dates or leave out the word), and to vary the use of often used words, such as "featured", with a variety of other words, especially shorter ones (such as instead of "featured a scoreboard" put "used a scoreboard"). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for words (such as "soon") which could be changed or removed. We are still over 60kb - but it is now down to 64kb. I don't want to unnecessarily hold up this GA review, so I'm accepting that the current length is reasonably appropriate for the nature of the topic. That's not to say that it couldn't be tightened up further, and I'd urge a continuation of copy-editing, but that it is acceptable enough for GA. I would also caution against adding material such that the article goes over 70kb. SilkTork (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

( @SilkTork: Thanks again for your comments. I just wanted to check in to see if there are any other areas of the article as it currently stands that you believe requires work to get it up to GA? I've done a fair bit of copy-editing in the past couple of days too, but I would be eager to hear your thoughts on where best to focus, as I've read through the review and I believe I've covered everything. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take a look later today, and let you know. I have been keeping a loose eye on things, and have noted that you and אומנות have been working hard. SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much SilkTork, for noting me, too, that means a lot to me, as indeed was hard especially to find for varied fields and for specific figures. Then condense this different coverage types. It was some struggle of sources types, trying finding sources amalgamating info for several artists also as not to add further Kilo bites, and in English, also find good condensed phrasing for me as a non-native speaker. In this regard, for article size, I shared some of my views on my 2 last edit summaries as I made few copy-edits, but want to explain my view further, also for you at the chance you still look through the article. And also regardless if you already decide to promote it.

• At the other-fields notable-artists. My coverage is the showcase of honours (for Humanitarian) and as the "acclaimed" and "achievements" intro I made suggests, and as I feel this is a powerful way to express for notability and focus here. The alternative coverage also now leaves Esma Redzepova (general politics and prise mention) unlike Ruslana, which was in herself relatively easy as narrow wording, and highlight, since most titles for her include "Leader" and one "Courage" and that's what I wanted to convey the most. I do appreciate pointing out specific circles and protests she was at, but that is still one view and personal preference for a different coverage type. I would have detailed something like that in addition too but was afraid to go overboard per the article size (I also can't see KB, only see bites size). I even drafted pointing the US presidency "courage" award but painfully gave that up and also why I removed other national figures I first posted. Also as I didn't know how/if eventually accepted to add further personas here. If the article size is still fine, also considering the 2 sources added for Ruslana which take further space, I still feel it would benefit readers even if describing in another way for her several global honours, and get both full coverage alongside the current description which only covers activity circles.
• Similarly, I feel for linking adjectives (as Ukraine's national parliament, highest children's literature honor) instead of their specific names (and at this instance, unlike the more known and meaning implied Noble PEACE Prize), as clearly my intention is to use explanatory links, and which are still obvious to where they link (not misleading or ambiguous as I gather from "Easter Egg" manual). This way the reader focuses on the meaning. Trying to look as a reader and at the current linking, it otherwise introduces unfamiliar names or at least their meaning potential (especially the Ukrainian parliament) and requires to hover or click to their articles to understand what it is, then keep the reading here. Maybe I'm wrong per manual, and at this chance ask if this is also still considered "Easter Egg" or if there's a rule to use direct links in this cases. If there's no problem with this, I prefer the adjectives links which I contributed.
• At "Origins and History" 1st paragraph. It's understandable and I agree with the intention to phrase that everything was rolled from Eurovision Network's first events towards the contest's creation, but it's 4 long sentences and 2 bits, commas, until reaching a dot. As I didn't want nor felt it should get a big copy edit, or change meaning and expression intentions, I put a dot in the middle to start a new line with "Based on those". And so since this is also not acceptable per the intention, I feel it needs to get shortened or to find a dot-split somewhere else. Also the other explanations sentences around it are well written with short sentence combinations, so that's why this further sticks out.
• At "Format" 2nd paragraph. "all participating countries compete in one of the two semi-finals, except", but the intro explains there are semis and final, then a following explanation for who and why automatic finalists, then for remaining countries at semis, and it's a small paragraph which is easy to follow. I feel these are in themselves distinction and context, and this addition therefore repeats the semis explanation. Also repetitions of "country" which I also raise, as I saw explanatory sentences and wordings at other places and may still be in other places. In any case, this boils down to my intention to help reduce for the final stages of the review, and for reading-flow.
• BTW, I also went through a bunch of footnotes, but not sure about parameters ordering and spacing for some, but see some are differently ordered as from older edits from other editor's. I don't know exactly the recommendation, especially for those including "archived from" and I'll leave that, but point this out as I think I recall it's checked at the most strict standards, as for the will to later promote this for FA. אומנות (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been held up on other matters yesterday and today. I am aware of this and will get to it as soon as I have a spare hour or two to read through the article and lead again. SilkTork (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• The article now passes on all points apart from the lead. I'm now looking at the lead, and the first thing I notice is that the interval acts are not mentioned, even though there is a section dedicated to this. I just had a look for which, apart from Riverdance, are the most notable acts that could be mentioned in the lead, and I became aware that there is only two mentions in the article of the opening act - one of those is in passing in talking about the logo, and the other is in a caption. While looking for mentions of the opening act I note that the opening theme is mentioned. And then I realised - silly this - but we don't seem to have a clear outline of the structure of the show: Opening theme, opening act, presentation of songs, interval act, voting, presentation of trophy, etc. So, I think there needs somewhere in the article (Format?) to be a brief outline of the structure of the final. There is also a tricky editing problem now of adding to the lead without bloating it. Some copy editing could be done on the lead to tighten it up.
• Summary: Include mention of interval acts in the lead (also mention notable interval acts such as Riverdance). Tighten lead*. Include mention of opening acts and an outline of the final in the article. *I'll give a hand with this after the interval acts are included in the lead, so don't worry too much about bloating. SilkTork (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have fiddled with the lead a bit - it can be tidied. I'll take another look later, but at the moment I don't think I'm that concerned about the lead. What is more important is having some mention of the opening acts and the outline of the final. SilkTork (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: Thanks for the additional feedback. I have expanded the Format section with a full paragraph now explaining the end-to-end contest structure, and included a few more overt references to opening acts in the article. I will take a stab at tidying up the lead in a bit as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy. Please keep on working on the article, but looking at what you have done, I am now happy to list this as a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)