Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ShiriEdits (talk · contribs) 04:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Starting review. Will deal with points 1, 2c, 2d, 3, 5, and 6.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a (prose and grammar)

On 9 December 2020 it was announced that the contest is set to take place in France in 2021 Contest in question has already been started and finished, and there is no comma. Change it to On December 9, 2020, it was announced that the contest was set to take place in France in 2021. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, although the article uses DMY dates so I retained that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

On 24 August 2021, the EBU confirmed that due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they were considering three scenarios in which the contest could be held. The three scenarios include: The event is held with no restrictions, as it was before the COVID-19 pandemic began (scenario A). The event is held with social distancing measures in place (scenario B). The Eurovision Song Contest 2021 was held in this scenario. The option is provided for acts to compete with their music video if they are unable to travel to Paris (scenario C, which was the option used by Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021) or to compete with a recording of the rehearsals if they are unable to compete in the televised final (this was the option used by Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021). The paragraph does not clarify which scenario the EBU chose for the contest. Clarify which option EBU chose. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the EBU didn't announce which was chosen, and it looks like in the end it was some mixture between scenario A and B. I have reordered the stuff in that section a bit so that it's clearer that those scenarios were just part of planning. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Other than those few mistakes, the article passes for grammar and WP:Manual of Style . ShiriEdits^Talk 04:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

2 (It is factually accurate and verifiable.)

2a and 2b

On 9 December 2020 it was announced that the contest is set to take place in France in 2021. It was hosted in Paris at La Seine Musicale, a 6,000-seat concert hall located on Île Seguin. Sources properly verify the statement.

On 15 October 2017, the EBU announced a return to the original system in 2018, to help provide broadcasters with a greater amount of time to prepare, and to ensure the continuation of the contest into the future Good enough citation.

On 9 December 2020 it was announced that the contest is set to take place in France in 2021., and On 9 December 2020, it was confirmed by the EBU that France, having won the 2020 contest, would host the 2021 contest. use the same citation, which is satisfactory enough for it to be used.

Rest of 'Bidding phase and host city selection' paragraph use proper citations.

On 24 August 2021, the EBU confirmed that due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they were considering three scenarios in which the contest could be held. The three scenarios include Sentence has 2 citations, but one is in Spanish so I will use a rough translation from Google Translate since I don't understand Spanish. (update) Citations are satisfactory and go into great detail on the scenarios mentioned by the article.

Rest of 'Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic' paragraph has satisfactory citations Pass .

Hmmm.... 'Presenters' paragraph uses a citation from Wiwibloggs. Is Wiwibloggs reliable enough to be used as a citation?

The slogan for the contest, Imagine, was revealed on 20 May 2021 during a press conference prior to the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Yet again, this statement uses Wiwibloggs as a citation. Again, is the blog website a actual news source or a speculation blog? (hmm... it might be the first option. Found a news piece by Wiwibloggs that uses Eurofestivales, (another) blog that got a direct statement by an RTVA rep.)

Wiwibloggs is considered semi-reliable by WikiProject Eurovision (WP:ESC/S); it's indeed not the best source. I replaced it with two others, one primary and one secondary. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The slogan was chosen as a reference to the previous year's winning song "J'imagine", as well as a way to encourage children to be creative and pursue their dreams. Cites a Eurovoix news piece, which also cites an RTVE news piece on the contest. Considering that RTVE is a Spanish state-owned / public broadcasting service, I think the citation can be used in this statement.

The official logo and theme artwork for the contest was unveiled on 24 August 2021. The artwork was inspired by three themes: imagination, Christmas and the Eiffel Tower. Cites junioreurovision.tv, a direct website made by what I assume EBU / Eurovision employees. Considering you are getting the information straight from the horse's mouth, this is good enough to be used as a source. But it would be great if the statement uses a 3rd party reliable source.

On 2 September 2021, 19 countries were confirmed to be participating in the contest, equaling the number of participating countries from 2019. Junioreurovision is used again in this sentence, which properly verifies the statement but this should have 3rd party sources as well. For the first time since the contest's inception, Belarus did not participate, as the country's broadcaster BTRC is in the midst of a three-year suspension from the EBU. Good sources, but explain why BTRC was suspended by EBU. The sources say that "BTRC was suspended from the EBU as a result of the use of the channel by the Belarusian Government as a propaganda tool." State that reason in some way like this (this is a sample make the sentence better)For the first time since the contest's inception, Belarus did not participate, as the country's broadcaster BTRC is in the midst of a three year suspension from the EBU due to the Belarus government using BTRC as a propaganda channel.

Rest of Participating countries have satisfactory citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiriEdits (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Scoreboard, Spokespersons and Online voting has satisfactory citations. ShiriEdits^Talk 03:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Other countries (Active EBU members, Associate EBU members, Non-EBU members) paragraph has satisfactory citations. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Rest of the article has satisfactory citations. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2c and 2d

The article is properly sourced, and it does not violate any copyright violations. Most violations are just the article mentioning the name of Eurovision contests. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Junior+Eurovision+Song+Contest+2021&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 ShiriEdits^Talk 04:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(nitpick) Why does the article repeatedly cite Eurovoix? Is it reliable and valid enough to be used as a reliable source? When you search Eurovoix and find the Eurovoix site, it says "Eurovoix - Made for Eurovision fans, by Eurovision fans." Is it a reliable fan website? I don't follow Eurovision - related events that much, so I don't know if this is reliable. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Eurovoix is listed as reliable on WikiProject Eurovision's advice page, although yes it may be a bit overused. However, often the alternative to using Eurovoix or a similar Eurovision-focused news site is using foreign-language news sources, and I think generally English-language sources are preferred. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

3 (It is broad in its coverage.)

The article goes into detail about the location of the event, bidding process, the production, format of the event, participating countries, and scoreboard, among other parts of the event. So I can safely say that it passes 3a. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The article references past Junior Eurovision contests in a limited way (e.g. stating where the contestant first participated in Eurovision). Pass ShiriEdits^Talk 08:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

4 (It follows the neutral point of view policy.)

The article properly talks about the topic without bias. Pass ShiriEdits^Talk 11:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

5 (It is stable.)

The article is consistently updated from time to time without any major edit wars. Pass ShiriEdits^Talk 11:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

6 (Images, fair use rationales, and suitable captions)

The free images (pictures of the hosts, the host venue, and the stage) have the right use license (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0). The non-free image (the logo?) has a satisfactory fair use rationale. (Should it be considered a logo?) Pass ShiriEdits^Talk 11:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall

@Jochem van Hees: The article overall passes (most) the criteria for GA. I will pass this over to a editor who knows this topic better than me after I finish this review.  On hold ShiriEdits^Talk 11:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@ShiriEdits: thanks for starting the review! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: After reading through this article, I believe that this Eurovision article passes GA. Sorry if you had to wait for this article to be approved. Good article Spodle^Talk 09:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you very much! ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)