Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 03:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   While 3rei Sud Est similarly took back their entry "Vorbe care dor" - does "similarly" mean the song was also withdrawn for the Irish national selection? If not, you may want to rephrase this.

This was not the case. I replaced "similarly" with "also". Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. The results in each show of Selecția Națională were determined by a 50/50 combination of votes from a 12-member jury panel and a public televote. The six best-ranked entries from each semi-final were scheduled to advance to the final round. Did the final use the same 50/50 combination to determine the winner? It isn't clear from the text.

This was also the case for the final. I also consider it to be a "show", hence why I wrote it like that. Do you have an alternative way of formulating it, cause I don't have any idea. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. A jury panel was made up to rate the songs, consisting of Romanian music professionals and media personalities: ... The results were as follows: Are the results in the table following those for the jury panel alone or for the jury panel plus the viewer votes?

It should reflect the combined result; I added that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The first table is confusing because (a) it doesn't include a legend to indicate what the various colours in the row represent, and (b) because it includes a number of struck-through entries with no explanation. While the latter is evidently intended to mean a withdrawal or disqualification, that should be indicated in the table itself rather than relying on the reader to read the accompanying text.

Included that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   I have my doubts about the licencing on some of these images but I guess we have to AGF on those.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Gatoclass: Any updates for this and the 2009 article? I'm not trying to rush your work, just wanting to make sure you did not forget about these two. Hope you have a great weekend. Greets Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, no I haven't forgotten about these two GANs, but I did rather recklessly open 10 GAN reviews while starting two GANs of my own, all in a futile last-minute attempt to rescue my Wikicup candidacy, and so it's going to take a little while to get around to all of them. Currently I've completed two reviews and one of my own GANs is just about done, so I'm getting through them, but it might take me a couple of weeks to get around to yours. If you don't want to wait that long though, I'm happy to stand aside and have you relist if that's what you want, it's entirely up to you. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I'm fine with waiting, I just wanted to make sure. Hope you're well, all the best of luck with your candidancy! Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Solved your comments thus far. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Any updates on this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, I am currently very busy in real life and have no time for editing wikipedia. However, at this stage it looks like I will be able to return to editing by about the end of the coming week, so you shouldn't have to wait much longer. Apologies once again for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I do think it's for both my and the reviewer's advantage to fail this nomination. The reviewer is too busy in real life to complete this, which is completely understandable. There may be someone else interested in picking this instead. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (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.