Talk:De la capăt

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De la capăt. 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/20150310055533/http://eurovision.tvr.ro:80/articole/selectia-nationala/voltaj-a-castigat-eurovision-romania/ to http://eurovision.tvr.ro/articole/selectia-nationala/voltaj-a-castigat-eurovision-romania/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YwvKq6rp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tonlist.is%2FMusic%2FChartlist%2F677%2F to http://www.tonlist.is/Music/Chartlist/677/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:De la capăt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chihciboy (talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll review. Chihciboy (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chihciboy: Any updates on this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak:. Yes Here we go:

Infobox

• Composer field is missing
• Run-time field is missing
• Producer field (Based on the liner notes, is Metropolitan) is missing
• You can move the Music video link at the bottom of the infobox

The parametres are missing since we have different versions of the song, and adding something there would confuse the reader. Also the producer is unknown, and there are multiple videos for all versions of the song, thus it won't be linked. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's okay, then.

Lead

• Consider rephrasing "children left behind by parents who work abroad" to "for children whose parents have left them behind to work abroad."
• link "migrant worker" to "parents" or "work abroad"
• Oberservers → Observers
• Move "Observers have compared the track to "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever" (1995) by Delirious?." to the second paragraph for consistency, just before "it won..."
• Italicize (Way of the Danube) since it is a registered English title.

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Background and Composition

• Consider including an audio clip?

I actually don't think it's needed here. There's nothing that a sample would help the reader to understand about the song more than it's already written about here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine with me.

In Vienna

• Alt parameter missing in image

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See also

• Consider inserting a "see also" section and
• Include "Euro-orphan" in it

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

External Links

• Consider replacing Music video link to Metrolyrics link?
• Include categories: Songs about children, Songs about loneliness

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Verdict

•  On hold for 7 days — Just a few tweaks and it's good to go. Chihciboy (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chihciboy: Thanks for your review! I have responded to your comments... Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Outcome

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congrats, @Cartoon network freak:. Chihciboy (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)