Talk:Evrovidenie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 03:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to conduct a review of this article for GA status. Before I begin a formal review, I noticed that the nominator has made extensive changes to this article over the past few weeks. As an article needs to be stable before promotion, my question is: Are the major changes to this article complete, or would it be better to withdraw this nomination and renominate when the changes/additions are complete?

Some comments after a quick skim:

The history section needs level 3 headings because it is too long.
Lots of text is struck through; I think this refers to years that the contest was canceled. The lede should not contain any struck out words (Kto? (2014),) and there should be an explanatory note for the table of why things are struck-out.
Ref 53, to the instagram login, is not correctly formatted.
Every paragraph in the article should end with a citation, and every note should be cited.

I'll conduct a more complete review once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for not answering for a long time, I have had problems with the Internet over the past 5 days due to protests in my country. I have done everything you have written and there is no need to withdraw this nomination because major changes to this article completed. Danilmay (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some specific comments:

Lede

"Over the years, the show has gone under several revamps and names," Delete over the years
"The winner of Evrovidenie has been chosen by panels of jurors since its inception." -> at its inception, since the voting model has changed since it was created.
"Throughout the years, broadcasters has used different formats to determine which artist and song would represent the Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest." I don't know what is meant by this: isn't Russia's Eurovision entry chosen through this competition?

Early years

"The first Russian national final, took place on 12 March 1994" Delete the comma after final
"Vika Tsiganova was disqualified due to the fact that Vika wanted to change her contest song, however, according to the rules, the artists had no right to change the song and as a result, Vika decided to withdraw her candidacy." Was she disqualified or did she withdraw? These are two different things
"A jury which was composed of representatives of RTR," -> A jury composed of...
"pushed the problems of the Eurovision Song Contest to a far corner." Far corner is an MOS:IDIOM, so should be reworded. Also, what do you mean by the problems of the Eurovision Song Contest? This should be explained.
"Ultimately, the jury came to the conclusion that none but one of the selection participants deserves to represent Russia and decided to send Philip Kirkorov to the contest instead of Viktoria or Oksana." -> "The jury decided that neither contestant would represent Russia, deciding to send Philip Kirkorov to the contest instead."
"At Eurovision, Russian song did not" -> At Eurovision, the Russian song did not
"In 1996, right to choose Russian Eurovision entrant returned to RTR, which using experience of 1994 again runs open national final." -> In 1996, the right to choose Russia's Eurovision entrant returned to RTR, which returned to the 1994 format of an open, national final.
"(winner of 1994 edition)" -> winner of the 1994 edition
"and representatives of public" -> "and representatives of the public" also, what does this mean? Were random people selected to sit on the jury?
"Andrey never made it to Eurovision due to the fact that Russia failed to qualify from audio-only qualification round," -> Audrey failed to qualify for the Eurovision show when they were eliminated during the audio-only qualifying round." or something similar.
"However, on January 1, 2000, ORT" Delete however.
"The artist internally chosen by the broadcaster," Delete internally, as it was already stated that the selection was internal.

I'll post more comments once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added everything you wrote to the article and would like to answer your questions.

1. I meant that the format of the contest has changed over the years 2. She withdrew her application. I just miswritten. 3. Paraphrased. A few months ago, I added the text from the source and paraphrased it a little, and for some reason I decided not to change the phrase "Problems of the Eurovision Song Contest". 4. Yes, random people sat on the jury. Even those who do not understand music could theoretically get there (Pensioners, builders and representatives of other professions). Danilmay (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(non-reviewer comment) Hi @Danilmay: some other things to work on until your reviewer returns would be formatting all references and sources using the {{cite web}} template. I converted some early on, but there are many that are just website links right now. Great job so far on the article! Grk1011 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danilmay: Sorry for my delay in continuing this review. For your question responses, these need to be added to the article to help clarify what you mean.

2004–2011

My initial impression is that this section is very long. Is there a way to reduce the information here, or to split it into smaller sections?
"In 2004, Yuri Aksyuta, Head of the Directorate of Music and Entertainment Broadcasting of Channel One, commented on the lack of national selection as follows: "It's too early to trust our public"." -> delete as follows
"However, after the discontent" Delete however
"The national selection consisted of 3 semi-finals, with 10 songs in each, from which, according to the results of the televoting, 3 artists from each semi-final went to the final." Too many commas. Perhaps, "The national selection consisted of three semi-finals, with ten songs in each. Three artists from each semi-final, chosen by televoting, went to the final which took place on February 25."
"In total, there were 9 artists in the final, which took place on February 25" This sentence is unnecessary and should be deleted.
"with the results being announced during the final broadcast for Western Russia." delete being
"Ultimately, the winner of the national selection was singer Natalia Podolskaya with the song "Nobody Hurt No One", who received 20.2% of the votes, the runner-up Dima Bilan scored 15.0%, and the third-placer Anastasia Stotskaya - 13.5%." -> "The winner of the national selection was Natalia Podolskaya with the song "Nobody Hurt No One", who received 20.2% of the votes" The results of the contest are not necessary here. Since this section is already large, this can be shortened.
"couldn't get through or their SMS did not send," -> "were unable to cast their votes." Avoid contractions, and "couldn't get through" might not be clear enough for readers.
"which was engaged in the organization of televoting," -> "which organised the televoting"
"Natalia herself commented on these rumors as follows: "It's typical kind of reactions here in Russia. I just ignore them."" This is not necessary and can be deleted.
"As a result of achieved place, Channel One decided to return to internal selections." -. "Following this result, Channel One decided to return to internal selections."

After reading through this paragraph, I am concerned that there will be many more concerns with the prose. I suggest that an editor copyedit the whole article to remove unnecessary detail, make the prose a little smoother, and ensure that everything is grammatically correct. WP:GOCER is a great location to get another editor to copyedit your work. If you choose to use GOCER, this GAN will need to be archived as it takes about a month to get a copyedit. Let me know if you want to continue with this review or want to archive this. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720: Myself and perhaps others from WikiProject Eurovision are interested in giving this a read-through for copy-editing if you're willing to extend the review period for a few more days. Grk1011 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can keep this open for a few days. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danilmay and Grk1011: How goes the copyedit? I also notice that prose is being added. Would it be better to withdraw this nomination for now, and restart it when it is ready? Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and another editor have performed the copyedit. You can now continue the review if you think the article has potential. For me, the largest remaining task is reformatting the (bare) references, but I was holding off on that until the final read through. Grk1011 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone for not getting to this sooner. I am going to take a better look at this by Thursday. If I forget (again) please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Again, I am very sorry for the delay. Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review restart

Hi, I am going to restart the review, starting by reading the whole article from the beginning. I will post my comments below:

Lede

"The results of the other selected representatives have been rather modest. They range from 11th place in both 2009 and 2010 to a record low of 27th place in the 1996 audio-only qualifying round." -> "The results of the other selected representatives have ranged from 11th place in both 2009 and 2010 to a record low of 27th place in the 1996 audio-only qualifying round." To remove an opinionated statement presented in wikivoice.
"The winner of Evrovidenie had been chosen by panels of jurors since its inception, however the 2005 competition used public televoting instead." -> "At its inception, the winner of Evrovidenie was chosen by panels of jurors but changed to a public televoting system for the 2005 edition."
"In 2021, the winner was chosen only by public televoting." -> "In 2021, the contest returned to choosing a winner by public televoting only."

Early years

"Kosinsky was eliminated in the audio-only qualifying round for the Eurovision Song Contest 1996, which was used by the European Broadcasting Union in order to reduce the number of participating nations that would compete in the televised final of Eurovision Song Contest 1996." -> "Kosinsky was eliminated in the audio-only qualifying round for the Eurovision Song Contest 1996, which was used by the European Broadcasting Union in order to reduce the number of participating nations that would compete in the televised final."
"With exception to host Norway, audio entries from 29 countries were played to national juries, of which only 22 proceeded to the televised Eurovision final in Oslo." This is not needed, as it has already been explained that there was a qualifying round, so this is off-topic
"All shows took place in Ostankino Studios in Moscow and in order to cater to the three time zones in Russia, all of them were broadcast live three times for each time zone." -> "All shows took place in Ostankino Studios in Moscow and broadcast live three times, once of each of the three Russian time zones."
"As such, each of the competing artists had to perform their song three times." This is not needed: it is already explained that the artist performed their song three times.
"Two years later in 2007, broadcaster RTR, which regained the right to choose a participant for Russia, was rumoured to be organising a national selection with three artists selected by the channel.[33] However, in January 2007, it was announced that Channel One had regained the right to choose the 2007 participant after RTR decided to participate in the Eurovision Dance Contest instead.[34]" I would delete this, as it is rumour and speculation, and did not amount to the return of the contest.
"2008 brought RTR back into the mix to choose the Russian entrant," -> "In 2008 the selection of Russia's Eurovision entrant returned to RTR" To remove "back into the mix" as an idiom
"among which, four were found to have violated Eurovision's so-called "October 1 rule" and eleven had violated the 3-minute rule. Three of the four already-released songs were eventually replaced with acceptable entries, and the songs that violated the duration rule were shortened to be less than 3 minutes in length." This feels like too much detail, and goes too much into the intricacies of that year's contest, and can be removed.

" increasing the number of participants from fifteen to sixteen." -> "increasing the number of participates to sixteen"
"During the national selection, which took place on 7 March at Ostankino Studios in Moscow, the selection took place in two stages." -> "The national selection took place on 7 March at Ostankino Studios in Moscow and consisted of two stages."
"Out of three applicants, a professional jury selected the winner of the national selection. Having received 6 votes out of 11, Anastasia Prikhodko won with the song "Mamo", which was performed in both Russian and Ukrainian." -> "Out of three applicants, a professional jury selected Anastasia Prikhodko's song "Mamo" as the winner."
The information that the song was in Russian and Ukrainian, and the subsequent reaction quote, can be deleted as too much detail.
"At the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, the song could not repeat the previous year's success, but took 11th place with 91 points." -> "At the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, the song placed 11th with 91 points."
"On 9 December 2009, RTR announced a submission period for interested artists and composers to submit their entries until 15 February 2010 for the Eurovision Song Contest 2010." -> "On 9 December 2009, RTR announced a submission period for artists to apply for the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest." The article doesn't need the exact dates for the submission periods of each contest.
The 2009 Evrovidenie paragraph is too long and should be reduced. I've made some suggestions above on how to reduce, but in essence the paragraph should not go into so much detail into the contest. In other places, find ways to reduce the number of words used in order to be succinct.
Why does the 2010 paragraph mention Dima Bilan if he was not selected to compete? This is too much detail and mention of him should be removed from this paragraph.
In 2011, Channel One, for the first time since 2007, refused to conduct a national selection due to the fact that there is low interest in the national selection in Russia. -> "In 2011, Channel One canceled the national selection because of declining interest in the selection process in Russia and the channel's claims that internally selected applicants placed higher than ones selected through the national selection process."
""The reason for the low ratings is that, as a rule, very young, unknown artists participate in the selection, for whom applying for the Eurovision Song Contest and appearing on the air on one of the federal channels is just an opportunity to declare themselves," said Yuri Aksyuta, head of the Directorate of Music and Entertainment Broadcasting of Channel One.[53] Aksyuta also stated that "as practice has shown, the participants selected by the broadcasters themselves usually took higher places at Eurovision than the participants who won according to the results of the public televoting. [...] Therefore, this year Channel One decided to nominate a participant independently." This is not needed, and can be removed.

"Russia's result at the contest was called "shame" and "almost worst in the Russia's participation history"" Who made these statements?

I will pause there and let editors address the comments, particularly the bloating and overly-detailed concerns. Some of the paragraphs, once they are reduced, might be able to be merged. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Pinging Danilmay and Grk1011 Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I added Bilan to the paragraph because both he, his producer and composer of his contest song stated that he would participate in the selection. His application was later withdrawn, but if he had not withdrawn his application, then maybe he would have been chosen as one of the participants in the selection. https://www.mk.ru/culture/article/2010/03/01/439420-evrovidenie-izbavilos-ot-bilana-s-kirkorovyim.html 2. These statements was made by Russian Internet users http://www.asfera.info/news/society/2011/05/15/evrovidenie_2011_aleksey_vorobev_kupaetsya_pozore_51615.html Danilmay (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danilmay: Re point 1: All contestants who might have competed could have won the contest, but I'm confused about why extra words are given to explain that Bilan withdrew from the competition. Unless there is something particularly important or notable about his entry, other than he might have won, I would remove this information from the article as too much detail.

Re point 2: Unless these internet users are notable (in other words, they have Wikipedia articles about them) than their opinions should be removed or replaced with the opinions of more notable people or publications. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720 I've removed the mentions of Bilan and internet users. You can continue the review Danilmay (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012-present

"After one year of absence from a national selection, RTR announced on 28 December 2011 that a submission period for interested artists and composers would be open to submit entries until 10 February 2012." -> After one year of absence, RTR announced on 28 December 2011 that it would reinstate the national selection process, and asked for submissions from artists and composers." This is less wordy.
"There, a jury panel selected the twenty-five finalists for the national final, which was supposed to take place on 26 February, but was postponed to 7 March." Why was it delayed?
"In 2014, despite the fact that the selection was supposed to take place, it was canceled due to the poor quality of submitted songs." -> In 2014, the national selection was canceled because the broadcaster thought the song submissions were of poor quality"
"After the cancellation of the 2014 selection, both broadcasters switched to internal selections, no longer intending to conduct national selections." -> "After the cancellation of the 2014 selection, both broadcasters switched to internal selections."

Venues and host(s)

The "Executive supervisors" table contains lots of unsourced material, and I don't think it is needed.

Voting

This table needs citations for each year

Judges

This table needs citations for each row of judges, minimum

Notes

All of the notes should end in a period, before the references

References

Ref 60, which verifies, "Two hours before the selection, names of participants were leaked via Instagram." Does this source verify that this was a leak? Who leaked the entries?

External Links

I notice that lots of these editions were not posted by the broadcaster. Does YouTube have permission to post this content? If this is copyrighted material, it should not be linked to in the External Links, or a link to the contest approved/posted by the broadcaster should be used instead.

That's it for my first readthrough. Please ping when the above are addressed and I will do another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720 Hi! First of all, I would like to apologize for the delay. I did everything you wrote.

1. The participants of the selection were announced only at the selection itself, https://rg.ru/2021/03/02/pervyj-kanal-vyberet-uchastnika-evrovideniia-2021-8-marta.html and in the description of the photo on Instagram it says "until the selection - 2 hours". https://www.instagram.com/p/CMKW9qMBEis/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading The participants were leaked by an Instagram user who posted this photo.

Is there a reliable source that can verify this information? Unfortunately, an instagram post by an unaffiliated user is, by itself, not enough to be reliable. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Only the 1994 selection was published by the copyright holder (In this case, this is the TV show Programma A, within which the selection took place). The 2009 selection was also published by the copyright holder (Channel One), but channel did not publish the selection in full, but each performance as a separate video and in rather poor quality. It would be possible to add a link to the playlist with all videos of selection of 2009 to this section, but I searched and did not find such a playlist. In general, I don't see the point in the existence of this section with only one video. Danilmay (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing else to add to that section, then it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danilmay: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images are fine and there are no copyright problems.

References

Lots of references are to bare urls. I suggest looking at WP:CS for templates on how to cite sources. The sources don't have to be perfectly cited, but at a minimum they should include the author/publisher, title, date, and a timestamp if it is a video, so that the reader can find the information that is cited more easily.

Additional comments above. I will conduct the spotcheck of sources a little later. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720 Yes, there is a reliable source who can verify this information. https://super.ru/a/otbor_na_euro_2021 Danilmay (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Z1720, Danilmay, where does this review stand? There hasn't been a post to this page in six weeks, though Danilmay has made a number of edits to the article since their last post here. What is left to be done, and how long do you think it will take? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Danilmay: I am sorry about the lack of response: I had real-life events that took me away from Wikipedia and I'm slowly making my way back. I am going to try to leave comments in the next two days to outline if this passes or if there are further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danilmay: I am sorry for the delay in reviewing this article. I had a personal emergency which took me away from Wikipedia for several weeks, and I wanted to ensure that I could review this article to the best of my ability.

I looked at the article with fresh eyes today, and I see that it is greatly improved. I made some changes, mostly to do with trimming the article length and phrasing so that it was easier for readers to understand the important information. Some thoughts below that, once resolved, I think this can be promoted:

Any information about Russia's selection of the 2022 Eurovision contest? I know that they were barred from participating, but was Evrovidenie planned to be used for the selection? At the very least, it should be mentioned that Russia is prevented from participating in 2022.

Note C and N at the bottom of the article need citations.

Let me know when the above are resolved or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720 Hi! I added all your suggestions to the article. AFAIK, there was no plans to organize Evrovidenie in 2022 Danilmay (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I can now declare that this is a good article. Congratulations and sorry for the delay in finishing this review. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]