Talk:San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023/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: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 17:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"with no points having been awarded to the nation for the first time in its Eurovision history" remove "having been" "Below is a breakdown of points awarded to San Marino in the second semi-final as well as by the nation in the second semi-final and final of the contest. Also included is the breakdown of the jury voting and televoting conducted during the two shows." This entire quote is not really something that's included in Wikipedia. I think the titles of the tables explain this already. Consider removing it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Spotchecks look good (links are live).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Feedback above in first box.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvios highlights some issues. However it seems most content highlighted are the names and countries from websites that have little content other than that.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Initially well written and should pass soon.

Hi @BritneyErotica: sorry for the delay. I just returned from a vacation. I've made the changes you noted above and also went through for one last copyedit. Thanks! Grk1011 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.