Talk:Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has been awaiting a review for far too long, so if it's okay I shall step into the role. In the spirit of disclosure, I should note that I have been a significant contributor to the Conchita Wurst article, so I have a prior familiarity and interest in the subject of this article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2015 (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.	Generally speaking, the prose is well structured and the meanings are clear. However there are a few instances where it feels a little off. For instance in the lede paragraph, we have the term "who had rose to fame", whereas, of course, it should be "had risen to fame". I'd really like to see the nominator go through the entire article and read through every sentence a few times, thus identifying and correcting the errors such as these (of which there are quite a few). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I've made a few improvements of my own here and there as I read through; for instance I changed "selection to select" into "selection to choose" and the like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Sometimes the word "Contest" is displayed in upper case and at other times in lower case; make sure that this is standardised throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Perhaps we could add a note into the article, explaining why we are using "she" as the pronoun for Wurst ? Certainly, the appropriate pronouns have caused some confusion over at the Conchita Wurst article in the past. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
	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.
	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).	Ideally, I would like to see all of these web sources archived using WebCite or WayBack Machine, lest they succumb to link rot over time. If that were to happen then information would actually have to be removed from the article, and its status may then have to be demoted, which would be sad. While I would strongly recommend archiving all of these sources in the near future it is not, however, a prerequisite at GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.	It would be nice to have an image in the lede box, although this is far from essential for passing this article at GAN stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	This definitely deserves to be promoted as a GA and the hard work that has clearly gone into constructing this article is certainly praiseworthy. However, I would like to see the nominator have another read through to tidy up the prose before I go ahead and award it with GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl: Does the nominator have to clean up the required prose, or may I do it on their behalf? Seeing as WikiProject Eurovision is a teamwork collaboration? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I don't mind at all if another editor goes through this article to clean up prose; there's no rule that says that the nominator has to be the one to do it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I'll do the clean-up now then. I am aware that the editor has also nominated Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 for GA review too, which is one of the 5 listed at the top of the GAN page. So I'll also look at that to see if there are similar clean-ups required. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I've done a copy-edit throughout the prose and cleaned up grammar and changed some wording from present to past tense. I've also changed "Contest" to "contest" where necessary. Also, {{Infobox song contest national year}} doesn't have the parameter built-in to support an image, as requested in your review. Please let me know if any other improvements are required. Regards, Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks for those edits, Wesley Mouse. I'd still like to hear from the nominator, particularly on the issue of Wurst's pronouns, before I go ahead and award the article GA status, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I had added text about Wurst's pronouns whilst doing the clean-up, which can be found at Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Selection procedure, and reads as follows "Neuwirth, who uses masculine pronouns when referring to himself but feminine pronouns to describe Wurst, went on to developed his new drag persona and appeared on ORF's talent show Die große Chance". Hopefully this should cover the issue. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wesley. Given that you seem to have covered all of my points and I haven't heard from the nominator, I think i tbest if I go ahead and pass this as a GA. Congratulations! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Sims2aholic8: this GA nom requires your attention. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)