Talk:Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007

Internet

"Interest has surrounded the song selection since Dervish are known for their capability of performing in English and Irish."

What does this mean? Who is interested? Whoever is interested seems to be interested because of Dervish's capability of performing in two languages? Really? How come? why didn't they sing it in Irish then,they probably would have done better! terrible stuff

Fair use rationale for Image:Dervish2007.jpg

Image:Dervish2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the 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.

---

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

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:

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

   check the stub paragraphs and expand or combine

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article needs work but I feel it meets the criteria for GA status.

Regarding Lead

• Overall Lead is ok.
• Since it is a summary of the article, you should add something about the fallout after the contest.
• Quote, "The song selected was "They Can't Stop the Spring", which went on to be sung in Helsinki." You already mention that they performed in Helsinki and the song they performed was "They Can't Stop the Spring" so the last part of this sentence is duplicative. H1nkles (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• Quote, "Ireland first entered the Eurovision Song Contest in 1965 and has since entered a total of 40 entries up to 2006 with its 41st entrance in 2007." This is bad prose, too many words to say that it first entered in 1965 and that Ireland's 2007 entrant was it's 41st. Also it's a stub paragraph and should be combined with the next paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "Ireland holds the record for being the only country to win the country three times in a row (in 1992, 1993 and 1994)..." What do you mean "the only country to win the country..."?
• Why don't you link 1992? Is there no article for Eurovision in that year? If not it should be red linked since every other year is linked. This may alert editors to the omission. H1nkles (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please cite the last paragraph to avoid original research. H1nkles (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding National Final

Regarding The artist

• Please cite the band members. This should be easy to do.
• Otherwise the writing is fine and you include in-line citations throughout this subsection. H1nkles (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding The songs

• Watch tense in the second paragraph. You start in the past tense then move to the present tense, then back to the past tense. Since we are talking about an event in 2007 you should stay in the past tense. Please fix this. H1nkles (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding The final

• This section is fine, a bit too detailed in the performance paragraph but not a big deal. Keep the detail it's ok.
• The last paragraph is very short, two sentences, consider expanding. How did the audience vote? What made "Until we meet again" the favorite? When was the vote announced. More detail could be added here to improve this section.
• Do you have a citation for the table? H1nkles (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding At Eurovision

• What is "free language"? Please either link or explain. As it stands it could be construed as jargon.
• Last paragraph is one sentence please either expand or combine with previous paragraph.
• Why was Dervish given such long odds to win? H1nkles (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Final

• This subsection could be expanded as well. Can you include some critiques of Ireland's performance? Why wasn't it well received? Do you have comments from the judges? Is there a YouTube video of the performance that can be linked here? What about uploading something to Wikimedia? The photo is enough but more would be better. H1nkles (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding After Eurovision

• If you're going to cite viewership numbers, "RTÉ received 780,000 viewers for the final, marginally higher than in 2006" then you need to add an in-line cite.
• Quote, "Despite this, reactions in Ireland were unsettled, with talks of "vote hijacking" after Ireland gave 12 points to Lithuania, getting little elsewhere" I don't understand what "vote hijacking" means. I'm not readily familiar with Eurovision so that may explain my confusion. Could you explain here what is intended by this quote? Does it need further explanation in the article?
• Again I think a short synopsis of the fallout after Ireland's disappointing show at Eurovision 2007 could be added to the lead. H1nkles (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• You rely heavily on ESC Today - 19 out of 24 references come from that website. For GA that is ok but if you want to move it up to FA consideration you'll need to expand your reference base. It reduces the credibility of the article to have such a heavy majority of your references from one website.
• Formatting of references is fine and accessdates are ok. H1nkles (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

• Overall the article is solid.
• The photo checks out.
• There are a couple of prose issues but those should be easily fixed.
• Make sure you add some in-line citations to some of your assertions.
• Check those instances of orginal research and jargon.
• Address the issues above or give rationale for why you disagree with my assertions and we can discuss it here. I'll put the article on hold for a week or until you feel as though you've addressed all the issues (whichever is first) and then I'll do my final review. Good job!!! H1nkles (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixes

Fixes that you have suggested have been made, and nothing major has been disagreed by me or others. However, your auggestion in combining the background paragraph to the next paragraph has come after another GA review for another Eurovision article calling for the background section - see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/1. Other than that, I believe everything else has been fixes. Please tell me if I have missed something. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Basically my suggestions for fixes are above if you feel as though you have sufficiently addressed my concerns and you are ready for me to do my final review then I will proceed. If I do my final review and find something that would prevent me from passing the article I will mention it and give you a couple more days to fix. Let me know if you'd like me to do the final review and I'll have it done by 2/2/09. H1nkles (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll be great. Go ahead. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I currently have an article up for FAC so I'm trying to respond to fixes there, I will get your review done by Monday 2/2 if that is ok with you. Thanks for your patience. H1nkles (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done another review, performed some copy edits. It's better and it looks like all the available information is there. the references are better. There are still some one sentence paragraphs, specifically the last paragraph in the "At Eurovision" section. These need to be addressed to comply with MOS. I will go ahead and pass the article with the assurance that you'll take care of thos paragraphs. Well done and thank you for your timely response to my suggestions. H1nkles (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116044801/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6481 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6481
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103093929/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6620 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6620
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116050225/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6520 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/6520
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403030756/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/7569 to http://esctoday.com/news/read/7569
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103094639/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/8805 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/8805

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022213137/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=1068 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=1068

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)