Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eurovision Song Contest 2012/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Eurovision Song Contest 2012
This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, which is currently at GA status. The article has since been expanded further, and also includes information on the official album release for that particular contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first on the draw is me. I was closely following this one-of-a-kind contest (not because of the political issues but because of the very location) and I have the following to say:
- Lead citations are actually discouraged on FAs as the lead gives an overview of the facts and not the facts themselves. I am the one who promoted another article fluorine to FA status and I have a neat knowledge on what an FA looks like.
- Ell & Nikki should have NBSPs surrounding the ampersand everywhere they appear as a musical act name.
- The controversies section's placement is controversial, at least to me: it breaks up article flow from pre-event to event to post-event and therefore should be placed after the other countries section. Otherwise it is neutral, stable, complete and concise enough for an FA.
- The participating countries section could use some layout improvements: only the participation map needs showing. Having two pictures "clamping" text on both left and right is usually frowned upon here. Parcly Taxel 08:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit freaky, I was just at the article and thinking to myself if there's anything else that can be done to improve it further, and then bob along here to find just what I need to aid me. I'll address those points and come back here once they are implemented. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parcly Taxel: Surrounding the ampersand with NBSP in regards to Ell & Nikki might be a bit of a problem, as the article itself for the act doesn't use "NBSP", it is simply Ell & Nikki. Any suggestions? Also, moving the controversies section so that is it after the "other countries" section would make it out of chronological sync. Those controversies occurred pre-event, with some news sources mentioned within the section that were still covering the topic post-event, even though the demonstrations had died down post-event.Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wesley Mouse: I meant non-breaking spaces around the &, not "NBSPs". It is yet another of my common shortenings – please think laterally! I think, however, that the controversies should be moved downstream as they are peripheral to the main event and therefore should not be covered so early on in the article. Parcly Taxel 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parcly Taxel: Forgive me, as I have never heard of the term "NBSP" before, and I am still somewhat confused by them too. Would you mind providing an example, so that I can clear my confusion? In regards to the controversies section, I have moved it anyway, and I must say it does look better in its new location. Based on your suggestions, I have also done the same to Eurovision Song Contest 2013, ready for a potential FA nom. This is the first time I've gone down the FA route, and hope that I can learn a thing or two, as I am one who likes to aim for high standards, and learning things from FA reviews will help me to be able to contribute towards Eurovision-related articles with an extremely high standard of input. Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Jonas Vinther
I will leave some comments later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With no offence, as much as I would like to assume good faith here, but I oppose to Jonas casting a review on this FAC - mainly due to the fact he is still in an on-going dispute over his reviewing procedures at the GA discussion page. As there have been concerns raised into his ability to carry out reviewing procedures correctly, then I don't hold much faith in procedures being carried out properly here too. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the whole article for tense, some sections and footnotes are written in the present or future tense. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nimbus227: I've modified the article's tense accordingly. If there are some sections that I have missed, would you be so kind as to point them out. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, some changes have introduced grammar problems, a 'showed' was changed to 'shown' when it didn't need to be. I would get a good copy editor to have a thorough check through.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.