Talk:Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Talk page shows stability. Article history looks like it's still being tightened up, or has in the last week, but nothing bad.
• The photo of Alsou needs an upright parameter.
• Are the photos of the Globe Arena, Ell and Nikki, and Samoylova really needed? The relevance is tangential in the first place, the corresponding text doesn't need illustration, and it's a lot of photos for a relatively short article.
• Tables, quote box, infobox all good illustration
• The paragraph-ending sentence In a 2016 Wiwibloggs poll called "What is your favourite Eurovision song from Russia?", "Solo" finished in third place with over 700 votes. has no inline source. Are there other statements without sources like this?

Continuation

Source review – concerns have been addressed

The two books in Bibliography are used as general references; as there is a cite-bound reference list already, using a single ref style may be an improvement. I would suggest converting the sources in the Bibliography to cite refs. Any nominator comment on the Further reading selections, particularly as two of them direct only to a single page in the works (these don't seem like they would have additional content out-of-scope for the article. Or much content at all) References can be generally improved, if you'd like, with trans-title for most and archive links where not already present #50, #51, #57 are bare urls and need to be either written out or put into cite templates to prevent link rot affecting verifiability. (#53, 54, 55, are also all close to being just urls) Many of the web sources are currently inaccessible for me, I assume it's the .ru domain. Because of the above, I can't actually see it, but I struggle to believe #30, the Cambridge Evening News is being hosted on a Russian mass media monitor legitimately. Please find the actual source for this. Actually, so many of the sources are via Integrum. Can they all be cleaned up. Similar to that, I believe that "worldradiohistory.com" is hosting pdfs of Billboard magazine in violation of copyright, and so cannot be used as a reference. The magazine itself could be cited without a weblink, but they are all available to view online via Google Books (here is 15 April 2000, p. 55... and here is page 57, which I think is what the reference actually wants to be pointing to...) Source review of random selection of 10% of refs (version): Mentioned right above, #10. It points to the wrong page but let's assume that's been fixed. Used in three places. ? First use: first, there are three refs at the end of this sentence, but all the information seems to be contained within #10, so the other two will be redundant. However, the article text seems a little inaccurate. Article text: The broadcaster received over 2000 submissions at the conclusion of the deadline. Source text: [Alsou] has been chosen by the national TV channel ORT from more than 2,000 applicants and will sing the English-language "Solo," written by Brandon Barnes and Andrew Lane and arranged by Steve Levine. The article is suggesting there were over 2000 submissions of songs, while the source does not specify if the number refers to songs or singers. It may be clarified in one of those other two sources in the article, or in one of the sources about the submission process, so I'm asking nominator. Y Second use Y Third use (quote block) #20, used in two places. Y First use ? Second use: the statement in the article is supported by the source, but it's very blatant copyvio of the source text. This article text will need to be rewritten in own words. #31, used in three places. ? First use: statement in article is supported by the source. The question here is whether more of the context from the source could be added to the article. ? Second use: the statement in the article is in the book, but a different page to that in the ref. While always important to not be wrong with page numbers, it's probably more pertinent when the article is directly quoting the source. Viewing the source on Google Books, it isn't giving me the page numbers, but I think it's 122. ? Third use: quotes in the article are in the source, and at the right page. One question here is why the second quote in the article is slightly rephrased; the text in the book (consciously modeling their singers and musical material on Europop) would be grammatically fine in the article just as it is now, so there's no need for the alteration. The other question is about the framing of the first quote; the article introduces the quote in a way that says that Russia being successful in 2000 was reason for them to start taking Eurovision more seriously, while the source says that Russia was successful in 2000 because it was the year they had started taking it seriously. It's quite an important distinction - especially because, as the source tells it, this statement shouldn't belong in an impact and legacy section unless you tweak it a little bit to more clearly say that 2000 was the beginning and the success made them continue with those kind of efforts (per this source). ? #35 - the information is in the source even if it doesn't mention 2000 explicitly. I just think the phrasing in the article could be improved, it currently somewhat suggests that either a jury or a televote will decide a top 10 and then each country has to decide which points to give each of those ten, which obviously isn't the case. #39, used in three places, sourcing points Y First use - though I think both these sentences can be removed. Y Second use Y Third use It may be worth adding a note that Macedonia has changed its name and the source is updated? This can be attached to the ref. ? #59 - the article says "Solo" came third in this poll, while the web page only shows the (9) options for the poll. At some point there was a poll widget there, and that for a period of time the vote had ended and the widget showed its results. I'm scrolling through the web.archive.org, and maybe this save from 2017 can be added to the ref, which will need to say it's a deadlink now. The other question here is the neutrality of the phrasing in the article; third place with over 400 votes is quite positive, promotional, whatever, while hiding the fact that it was out of 9 options (not every Russian entry) and that its 401 votes was (just) 6.17%. On the positive side, there's lots of prose in the source about why Wiwibloggs picked those 9 options, so something else could be written rather than just the poll name and the best-looking of the numbers. This source review isn't concerning enough to quickfail right now, but there are concerns with how sources (even where article text is accurate) are being used. Since most of the unchecked sources are inaccessible, and currently not linking original sources but going through a Russian media control outlet, sourcing really is dubious. When cleaning up the refs, I ask the nominator to check the source-article text integrity. Source review now looks good Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuation

• Is the Russia's least successful result... sentence in the background really needed?
• Prose/phrasing could be better, but is not bad and can be understood. Good enough for GA.
• The quote in the "Internal selection" section would be better in-line, just a sentence on the end of the preceding paragraph of "The ORT president said..."
• We don't need a full list of the entrants (the According to the Eurovision rules, the 24-country participant list... sentence) - just explain why Russia could enter in 2000 when they had missed a few years.
• When mentioning Russia petitioned for Denmark's disqualification, article should probably mention Denmark won.

Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall

Kingsif, thanks for picking this up! I've covered all of the points you raised above (added upright parameter, removed the photos and added the source to the last sentence). Please let me know if what I've done is ok or if you have any other suggestions. Danilmay (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I saw that you were active but hadn't responded so I thought I'd wait for acknowledgement. I will do a source check next, and then go through finer prose details; if you have any comments at any point, please leave them! Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Danilmay: Hi, would you be able to start addressing sourcing concerns before I get into a prose review. A general comment on the prose I've noticed so far though is that "the" is missing in a bunch of places, so adding that as you go through would help. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I've addressed most of your concerns. The only question is what did you mean by the question "Can they all be cleaned up?" and the word "actual source"? If you are confused by the fact that many sources are available through Integrum, I want to say that Integrum is, in fact, a news database, like, for example, newspapers.com, so I don't see any problems with using this site.

Notes on sources:

• #10: I removed the two sources that were next to source 10 and added a source that says 2000 submissions of songs were received by ORT.
• #31: I don't think it would be possible to add more context from the source to the article, because I didn't find the context for the phrase "...and featured Alsou, dressed in a pink glittery outfit designed by Maria Grachvogel" in the book. I also corrected the page number, grammatically tweaked the second quote and removed the first quote.
• #35: I have slightly altered the arrangement of sources in this sentence. Source 34 now supports the first part of the sentence, and source 20 supports the second part of the sentence because text in the source says almost the same thing as in this part of the sentence.
• #39: I don't think it's worth adding a note that Macedonia has changed its name, because this in fact has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
• #59: Rephrased

If there are any other points that I haven't covered, please let me know. Danilmay (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Danilmay: Thanks for that. While I'm familiar with what Integrum is, my understanding is that it may ...wash... what it hosts, so not just like newspapers.com . In any case, my main concern is first the accessibility (.ru being of its own mind), and second, the point of using a host when the original source should be available. As I said, I doubt that the only place one can read the (English) Cambridge Evening News is through a Russian site. Other replies: ah, a slight typo has confused re. #31 - content, not context! There is more about the dress etc. in the source, and it's possible to add some more info, no? Re. #20, yes, you're right text in the source says almost the same thing; as I said, that's not a good thing. That's a WP:COPYVIO. Re. #39, no? Even though the source has a different name for the country and some well-intentioned editor may endeavour to make them match? Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Danilmay: and @Kingsif:. I noticed on ESC project alerts page that this review has been languishing for a month. Any way I can help? Grk1011 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I note that in the last month, @Danilmay: has filled out more citation parameters, I suppose I'd like to hear their views on the rest of the source points in my recent paragraph; then it's time for a prose review. Which could be quick (everything looking good), but could throw up other issues. If you're familiar, Grk, I am sure everyone would appreciate someone combing the article for its focus - does the article cover all the important parts in sufficient detail, and does it not go off-topic. Kingsif (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Kingsif! I apologize for not responding for so long. Anyway, I've improved the prose in the article and filled out more citation parameters, so I hope the article looks better than ever now.

Comments on your concerns:

• 1. If you are confused by the fact that the sources are not available to you, then this does not mean that I will change the sources to available ones, since its unavailability for some users does not necessarily mean that the source cannot be used. You also said that you are "familiar with what Integrum is". Then can you please explain what you mean by the word "original source", because, apparently, you know more than I do and you know where to find it and how to find it.
• 2. There is nothing more to add about the dress, because there are very few sources about it and there is no information significant for adding to Wikipedia in them.
• 3. Rephrased
• 4. See MOS:MAC. In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name, i.e. "(Republic of) Macedonia". Danilmay (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If I can't conduct a source review for the majority of the references, I can't conduct a review and this will fail on procedural grounds. It's also concerning when most of the sources aren't the original source, but versions of them hosted on a news aggregator ... that favours Russia. If your stance is firm, you can ask at WT:GAN for another reviewer to take over; hopefully they'll either access the platform or, if unable, also uphold WP:V and ask the same. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I thought about your complaints with a calmer head and I think they make sense. I'm thinking about the option of ordering scans of newspapers to provide them to you, what do you think about this? Danilmay (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's suitable; per V, the sources don't have to be permanently accessible to everyone (though this is of course preferred). Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Kingsif, Danilmay, where does this review stand? It's been almost six weeks since the most recent posts here and edits to the article. It would be great to get this nomination moving again. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It could procedural fail to let Danilmay have time on the sources since the article hasn't been edited. You know I can take a holistic view at keeping reviews open if they can be productive, though; I'll leave it up to you whether to close it or not. Kingsif (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I wrote to the WikiProject Resource Exchange on Russian Wikipedia and they said they would provide scans next week, so there is no need to close the review. Danilmay (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is great, thanks Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I got the scans. Where should I send them? Danilmay (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have an email link, I think if you go to my profile there should be an option to email in the tool list. Kingsif (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I sent you the scans. Check your email. Danilmay (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will, I'll review them, then get into the other criteria (prose and focus, should be fairly quick) - thank you for going to the trouble. Kingsif (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, a friendly reminder that your review here is awaiting your attention. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made it through the sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

•  On hold Few last comments. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi @Kingsif: I'm not sure where Danilmay has been for the last few weeks, so I've gone ahead and hopefully addressed your remaining comments. Cheers. Grk1011 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks. Since you've also pinged Danilmay, I'll give them a day or two to respond in case they object to changes, before passing. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, sorry for not answering for a long time. I don't mind the changes and therefore the article can pass. Danilmay (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)