Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 is currently a Music good article nominee. Nominated by Grk1011 ( talk) at 18:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cyprus Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Eurovision Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grk1011 ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewer: K. Peake ( talk · contribs) 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I am happy to work with you again, it has definitely been a while; this should be reviewed in no time! -- K. Peake 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox and lead

• Remove wikilink on "Stronger Every Minute" since this literally leads to the article for the participation
• I would suggest also mentioning that the Greek lyrics were removed for the song to be completely in English in the lead as the third sentence
• The lead should be two paras instead; please move the entry decision to the first para along with the above sentence as will come before it
• "as a CD single and Andreas performed" → "as a CD single with a music video. Andreas also performed"
• Merge the last para with the second one per earlier

• I ended up just rewriting the whole lead. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Background

• "Prior to the 2003 contest," → "Prior to the 2004 contest,"
• Pipe 1981 to Eurovision Song Contest 1981
• "when its selected song" → "when the country's selected song"
• Remove the comma after previously released and also, move [2] to the end of the sentence instead
• "By 2003, the country's" → "By 2004, the country's"
• "Its worst finish in" → "The country's worst finish in"
• "however, for this year's contest," → "however, for the 2004 contest,"

Before Eurovision

National final

• Wikilink Eurovision Song Contest 2004
• The five-member selection committee are not sourced themselves, although I must say props on how well-written this first para's prose is to you!
• The location and host of the national final are not backed up by the source
• "for the United Kingdom." → "for the UK."
• Pipe 2003 to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003
• Table looks good!

Promotion

• The CD single release is not sourced; add a ref for this in prose to justify the img
• Mention about the video's synopsis per the source because it does not have its own article

At Eurovision

• Move the img to the left please to avoid overlap
• Change the United Kingdom to the UK in prose

Voting

• Good all round, really well-written and the tables of course!

References

• Copyvio score looks amazing at 8.4%!!!
• Remove eurovision.tv from refs 1, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, plus only wikilink European Broadcasting Union
• Cite ESCToday as publisher instead on refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15 and 16
• Cite EuroVisionary as publisher instead on ref 8
• Remove Kent Online from ref 9
• Cite ESCToday as publisher instead and fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 12
• WP:OVERLINK of BBC News on ref 19
• Cite ESC Bubble as publisher instead on ref 22

• I feel like we typically have this back and forth about ref format, which isn't really a GA criterion. I do want to come to some conclusion though because you tell me to do it one way and other GA reviews (and other editors too!) tell me to do it other ways, even causing edit warring. The {{ cite web}} template states the following: publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH" are not usually included. Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).
• So a couple takeaways:

• In general, when articles exist, they should always be wikilinked, especially since references aren't read in order, so a reader won't know that an earlier ref has the wikilink. Also a related guideline states: Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. As such, I wikilink all.
• It appears that 'publisher' is reserved for a company (like an old school publisher that printed books, but updated to be a company/entity). Both 'publisher' and 'work/website' should be listed for each ref since 'work/website' is what you viewed, and 'publisher' is the owner of the site. Many websites are self-sufficient, so they often don't have differing publishers and names. The documentation says in that case omit 'publisher' and use 'work' or 'website'. As such, for example, ESCToday has only 'work/website' and Eurovision.tv has the 'website' and 'publisher. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bibliography

• Pipe Carlton Books to Welbeck Publishing Group

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; this went nice and quickly! -- K. Peake 18:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to be away for a few days, but I got started on this just in case I was able to get it done. A couple comments above. I'll likely be able to respond on Sunday and finish up then. Grk1011 ( talk) 23:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply