Talk:Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 April 2020 (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) 14:21, 28 April 2020 (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

• Sources look good
• Copyvio check and spot check of Spanish language sources good
• Everything cited in line
• Image licensed and relevant
• Talk page and history clear
• Duplicate links: La 1 and Italy appear twice with same link and text in the body.
• Tables are indicative and their refs are in the prose
• Lead might be a bit on the long side
  • The part The public had from 5 February 2013 until 11 February to select one of two songs via the internet that would be performed along with two other songs on the televised national final on 26 February. seems like excessively intricate detail for the lead
• The bold in the lead doesn't seem appropriate here
• Prose and other comments reading top to bottom:
• First sentence missing the word 'song' in with the "Contigo hasta el final"
• Redundancy in Spanish broadcaster Televisión Española (TVE) in December 2012. The broadcaster organised - change 'The broadcaster' to 'TVE'
• The phrasing of after being obliged by the competition's organisers to vote in the second semi-final sounds like the vote was a forced and unwelcome thing. Rewrite this?
• It's probably a bit too much detail to list all the times Spain came second - just saying how many times will suffice.
• The phrasing of This method had last been used by TVE in 2012 is also strange; 'had last been' suggests it was a long time ago, when it was the year before. Just say the same method was used in 2012.
• Issues with TVE announced that they would continue to internally select the artist that would represent the nation for the Eurovision Song Contest through mutual dialogue
  • It's unclear to what "through mutual dialogue" is referring
  • It's unclear with whom the dialogue is occurring
  • What does "mutual dialogue" even mean?
  • ...maybe just remove "through mutual dialogue", it seems like a vacuous phrase that only adds layers of confusion
• Worldwide media is an unusual phrase - 'global media' and 'international media' are common
• The list formatting in the multilingual singer Chenoa, Malú, David Bisbal, the runner-up of the 2002 edition of the music contest television show Operación Triunfo, Diana Navarro, Álex Ubago and Sergio Dalma is awful. Either ditch the descriptions, or add a description for everyone, make it clear to whom the description is referring, and use semi-colons.
• I would say that The band was formed in 2002. Its lead vocalist Raquel del Rosario changed the name three years later after reading a book about the interpretation of dreams which has a character called Morpheus. is poorly written, but it's unnecessary detail that should be removed, anyway.
• for better communication with the contest's international viewers and spectators is an awkward non-English phrasing. Try "because it would be more easy to read for an international audience" or similar
• Move some of that detail about voting from the lead to the part in the article where it should be but isn't.
• Jury votes aren't detailed enough that the box needs to be collapsed
• The description of +Gente shouldn't be repeated
• Re. the numbers in the thousands of millions (e.g. 5,639 million), I'm pretty sure this is a Spanish translation where the comma represents a decimal point, i.e. it should be "5.639 million". A big clue is the fact Spain doesn't have over 15 billion people.
• I've done some copyediting in parts that were harder to parse

Overall

• on hold Some issues, mainly prose. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: Have made the appropriate changes to the article. MWright96 (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay. I've done a final copy edit, mostly spelling and tense corrections. Happy to pass this now. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)