Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002/GA1

GA Review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

{{pb}}

I'll take this review. If you have time, please consider starting one of your own: the backlog at WP:GAN is long. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

:I'm just visiting this to give the polite suggestion a reviewer takes a good look at source adherence. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

::That is the basic duty of a GA reviewer {{u|Kingsif}}, and I will additionally note that your article was nominated by a different editor than for this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
  2. :A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|hold}}
  3. ::
  4. :B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it verifiable with no original research?
  7. :A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. ::
  9. :B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|hold}}
  10. :: See #Comments below.
  11. :C. It contains no original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. :D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: {{GAList/check|y}}
  14. ::
  15. Is it broad in its coverage?
  16. :A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|y}}
  17. ::
  18. :B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|y}}
  19. ::
  20. Is it neutral?
  21. :It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: {{GAList/check|y}}
  22. ::
  23. Is it stable?
  24. : It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: {{GAList/check|y}}
  25. ::
  26. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
  27. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|y}}
  28. ::
  29. :B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  30. ::
  31. Overall:
  32. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|hold}}
  33. :: See #Comments below.

=Random source spot-check=

  • 2 fine
  • 3 fine
  • 10 AGF but based on basic Greek knowledge, probably fine
  • 17 fine
  • 25 fine
  • 28 not sure if it's necessary, but it's fine source-text-wise

;Spot-check passed

=Comments=

  • "Ellinikós Telikós 2002 was the Greek national final developed by ERT" is somewhat unclear. "Final" as in final competition? Do you "develop" a final?
  • I have edited a couple of sentences for better grammar/punctuation/clarity.
  • "Ten songs competed" songs don't compete—perhaps performers or artists do?
  • Is the youtube citation really necessary?

Putting this on temporary hold; just a few comments to resolve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} Thanks for the review! I piped national final to National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest. I guess I hadn't realized that it was a jargony term. I changed the "songs" to "entries". I want to say performers, but since some songs were by groups that got weird. The Youtube link is more of a courtesy. I could just cite the existence of the event itself without a link, but since the Youtube video was posted by the broadcaster itself, I included it for additional verifiability; it serves as the only ref for some of the info. Grk1011 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}