Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Participation map

The participation map shows that Hungary did not qualify to the final, but they did. András Kállay-Saunders performed his song "Running"?

talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Which map are you viewing? As I see it, Hungary are shown (in green) as qualified on the map.
Mᴥuse 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Grrr, I'm such a fucking idiot; I confused Hungary with Slovakia. Sorry, my bad.
talk) 01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Artists award should be artistic award

I happened to notice an inconsistency in the section on the Marcel Bezençon Awards. In the paragraph it talks about the Artistic Award, while the table calls it the Artists Award. I assume the table is incorrect, given the descriptions here: [1]. Puf (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to have linked to
Mᴥuse 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Bezen%C3%A7on_Awards

Incidents section: comment from Lithuanian spokesperson

Continuation of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 3#'Incidents' section?

Is it really necessary to make such a big deal about the comment from the Lithuanian spokesperson? Clearly the joke was not intended to be offensive and it doesn't seem like it really offended anyone, since it was a salute to Wurst, if anything. Besides, the host saying "Time to shave, I think not" is most likely due to the voting moving on to Austria following Lithuania, not a reproach at the comment. T.W. (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage a particular incident or topic gets should be dependent on the level of coverage it gets in
CT Cooper · talk 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ondas Award

It has been announced that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of an Ondas Award in the International TV category.Official Site, El País These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are relevant and well-known in Spain. I'd like to include a line in the article but I don't know where it could go. Xelaxa (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@
T@lk 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
T@lk 19:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Wesley Mouse:OK, thank you, so may I bring here a precedent that exists in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 article. The broadcast of the 2011 Contest was awarded the Rose d'Or award for Best Live Event. This is mentioned in the lead of the article only. I think we may need to think how to include information about accolades the contest receives as a tv production, without coming into conflict with the criteria you mention. Xelaxa (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
T@lk 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Found a way around this. I've included this into the "Other awards" section, with a detailed prose to explain what the awards are about and when this award was won - using the {{
T@lk 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Wesley Mouse:, I think the wording you propose is very clear (there is a small misunderstanding I will point later on), the {{Awards table}} template fits perfectly, and the solution you found is valid overall. However, I also think, regarding the inclusion of this into the "Other awards" section, there is a danger of mistaking different contexts. The Marcel Bezençon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are parallel awards in the context of the song contest itself: these are awards that purposedly exist for the competing entries. The accolades the contest gets as a tv production, like the Ondas Award, are related to the reception the contest gets as a tv broadcast. Whatever is the solution we adopt, I think it should be applied also to the 2011 Contest article and our project, generally, that's also why I wanted to bring the Rose d'Or example to our attention. Xelaxa (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I corrected the small misunderstanding I referred to: The Ondas Awards ceremony will take place on 25 November, though the award recipients were announced yesterday. Xelaxa (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
T@lk 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Wesley Mouse: The prose is not "mistaking", but I still see a problem with content structure. You say the "other awards" section includes "all other awards not issued by the EBU themselves". I think that's too broad when we are talking about two very different aspects: the competition ESC consists of and its "extended world", on one hand, and the reception ESC gets as a broadcast, a product by itself, on the other. The awarding bodies that were already included in this section, exist due to the Eurovision Song Contest, and hand out awards annually to its competing entries. These are "unofficial" awards that are parallel to the contest itself. The Ondas Awards have no established link to the Eurovision Song Contest, they honour different tv works every year (among other fields), and this year it has happened they decided to honour the production of the 2014 ESC Grand Final (EBU itself and DR). It is a tangential event (vs. parallel). I actually think the accolades the contest receives have more to do with "ratings", as different aspects of "reception": "critical reception"/"accolades" and "ratings". Xelaxa (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Nevertheless, the title of the section is "Other awards" which is an ambiguous title in itself. It basically says to the general viewer that the section is covering a topic on "other awards", whether that be unofficial awards Such as the Marcel Bezençon Awards, OGAE Poll Award, Barabara Dex Award, or other awards in connection to the contest itself. If it is going to be a case of "mistaking title identity", then that is easily resolved too - just add a prose to explain that several awards are issued for a variety of genres, from unofficial ones for artists, and professional ones for the show itself. Then we sub-divide the section so that it covers each respective awarding body. This then keeps everything concise enough for the

T@lk 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I am surely not as knowledgeable about
FA criteria, but I am convinced there are other possibilities that can resolve this, maybe in ways that are more concise and less ambiguous, and still meet the criteria. I think we can agree there is a clear distinction between unofficial awards closely linked to ESC that are issued in the ESC context every year, and professional accolades with no established ESC-connection that ESC may receive occasionally. Why not structure according to this very clear distinction? Why resort to a pre-existing section that dit not contemplate this and make it more miscellaneous? What if an ESC edition was particularly acclaimed as a TV production and received awards from a handful of awarding bodies? Would a sub-section for each of them be created, necessarily? In fact the {{Awards table}} you introduced is used to list awards that a certain work or professional receives from different awarding bodies. In articles about tv shows, there is often a "Reception" section that encompasses ratings, critical response and accolades, as in FA-Class article example Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series)#Reception. In the case of an awards ceremony telecast that received awards from other awarding bodies, it is resolved with a "Ratings and reception" sub-section: 86th Academy Awards#Ratings and reception. I bring these examples as possible inspirations. In our case, the information about ratings is a kind-of-orphaned line as the introduction of the "International broadcasts and voting". I tried to look up if there was any information about ratings in the article, but it was not easy to find, as I wasn't sure where it could be in the Contents structure. We could create a "Reception" sub-section under "International broadcasts", and I think the info about accolades for the broadcast would fit better here. I can come up with a proposal to reflect this. Xelaxa (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that if something isn't broken, then it doesn't need fixing; therefore I have to strongly disagree with your suggestion that there maybe more way to be concise and less ambiguous. Like I pointed out, the title covers "other awards", irrespective of who the awards are connected to, they are still covering the topic of any "other awards" - which is then subsequently sub-divided into the respective awards. It would be overzealous to make things "less ambiguous" by giving each award a standalone section in their own right. It was established during the
T@lk 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not suggest to move the information about ratings out of the "broadcasting section". On the contrary, I'm trying to suggest to move the info about the Ondas Awards there in a similar way, because I think it holds more due weight to that section, and create a "Ratings and reception" sub-section there where there wouldn't be any kind of "Ondas Awards" standalone title. I do not support a standalone section for the Ondas in its own right. On the contrary, I would strongly disagree, and in fact I think the Ondas Awards are given more weight than necessary in the current layout. The Ondas Awards do not have an established link with ESC like the other awards have, the concession of this award this year is just reflective of the reception the broadcast got, in this case the reception it got from a proffesional jury. The problem I see is not "official" vs "unofficial at all, it's "pararell events to ESC, closely linked to ESC" vs. "tangential event to ESC". Ratings, critical response, professional accolades for ESC as a tv show, aspects of the reception it gets as a tv show, were not contemplated in the layout RfC a couple of years ago. I would thank you if you could check the two examples I brought in my previous comment. Maybe they reflect what I'm thinking much better than my own words. Xelaxa (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ondas Awards does not hold any due weight in the broadcasting section. That is all about the television networks who broadcast the Eurovision Song Contest. The receipt of an award based on the production of a show does has no bearing on that section whatsoever. And I'm sure many other project members would agree that the Ondas Award in its current "other awards" section is suitably and correctly placed. @
T@lk 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The opinion of other editors would be very welcome, thank you Wesley Mouse for asking for third opinions. To further explain my position: The candidates that opt for the Marcel Beçenzon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are exactly the same candidates that opt for the main award issued to the winner of ESC. These are "other awards" in relation to ESC competition in a very literal way. The inclusion of an award for ESC as a tv production from a body with no established connection to ESC, with its own standalone subsection for this awarding body, breaks this precedent logic and gives this awarding body more weight than necessary. The relevance of the information about this particular Ondas award ESC 2014 received, if there is such relevance, comes from the fact that this a reflection of the reception ESC 2014 Grand Final (we forgot this bit so far) got as a production, a broadcast in its final form. The information can be put in a proper context of "reception to the broadcast" elsewehere, without giving the particular awarding body more due weight than necessary with a standalone title that is reflected in the Content table. Section and sub-sections covering "Bradcast and reception" or "Reception and ratings", encompassing ratings, critical reception and accolades, are very common in Wikipedia articles with certified quality about tv shows of different genres. The current layout for ESC edition articles lacks an analogous space covering this field of interest, and this is a tv show, apart from a contest in its own. Information about the Ondas and other potential accolades for ESC 2014 as a tv production could be mentioned in such a section or sub-section without any need for standalone titles for particular awarding bodies. "Ondas Awards" is not by itself an established field of interest in relation to ESC, unlike "Marcel Bezençon Awards" , "OGAE" and "Barbara Dex Awards", and a standalone "Ondas Awards" title would not be expected. Xelaxa (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see,

T@lk 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I would say that:
  1. Including the Ondas Awards in the "Other Awards" section may be misleading, as the other awards there are all awards specific to the competition, rather than other bodies which have given awards to the competition.
  2. Putting the Ondas Awards in a "Reception" section would not necessarily be helpful as it might not be where one would expect to find it.
  3. The "195 million viewers" figure would fit better under a "Reception" section, but one should not be created just on that basis. It's still fine under "International broadcasts and voting". (Mildly tangentially, I did also suggest briefly in the GA review that ratings information could be expanded beyond that lone sentence. A larger paragraph discussing viewing figures would be more likely to require a "Reception" section than the short line currently existing.)
So I'm fairly neutral on the subject, which is why I haven't contributed to the discussion before. Is there any chance a concise sentence or two could be added somewhere in the "Other Awards" section to show clearly that "these awards run parallel to the competition, but this one has been awarded to the competition"? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
Wesley Mouse: One of the examples I gave was not but a television series, but an awards ceremony (the 86th Academy Awards), which has a "Ratings and reception" section encompassing ratings and awards to the ceremony telecast. Anyway, I do think ESC can be treated as any other tv show in many aspects, because it is a tv show fundamentally. I like your idea for a "Reception, ratings and viewing figures" in the parent article. Xelaxa (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I support a sentence being included to differentiate between the award for the actual television show versus awards related to the contest for the time being. But if another section can be created that can better house this information as well as ratings information, then that should definitely be considered. Pickette (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Stupid internet connection logging me out whilst I was in mid-sentence) Anyhow, yes having a reception and rating section within the main parent article at
T@lk 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

My suggestion for a supporting sentence within the "other awards" section: The Marcel Bezençon Awards, the OGAE voting poll and the Barbara Dex Awards are awards that were contested by the entries competing at the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, in addition to the main winner’s trophy. In contrast, the Ondas Awards have honoured the production of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 itself in one of their categories.. Feel free to make any change you think is necessary or convenient. Xelaxa (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that wording, although I would like to clarify that such wording would not contravene the
T@lk 10:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I would have thought a pretty simple factual statement of that nature will be a helpful clarifier for the reader and won't contravene
CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (
    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
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

Infobox

  • Is there a reference for the presenters? For the articles on the past two years, it's been sourced to Eurovision Broadcasting Union articles; maybe this could be a reference.
This source is referenced in the infobox regarding who presented the show.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Reference #20 describes Jon Ola Sand as "Executive Supervisor of the contest", so maybe that could be linked from the "Executive supervisor" parameter as a reference.
Done.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This could be a source for the executive producer and and host broadcaster.
Well done, is added.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
For the other 2 GA articles
T@lk 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
T@lk 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand. It's much like not using sources in the lead if the information is already cited in body text of the article. Well spotted,
speak to me!) 01:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"infoboxes should contain data that is already cited elsewhere in the article." —- Yes, but the information in this case isn't written elsewhere in the article, let alone cited there. Jon Ola Sand isn't mentioned outside of the infobox. Neither is Pernille Gaardbo. So they need to either be discussed in more detail outside the infobox, with sources there, or we need sources for them placed in the infobox. Is there anything relevant to say about them, other than their roles as executive supervisors and producers? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Exec Supervisor is the same every year, until he or she steps down and a new supervisor is appointed by the EBU. It is only at times like that when the Exec Supervisor becomes noted within the main article body. So I suppose adding a citation for the supervisor in the box is more appropriate on this occasion. As for the Exec Producer, they are appointed each year by the host broadcaster (in this case DR). So more details about Pernille Gaardbo being appointed should ideally be within the main article and cited there. I'll quickly update that section, if that is OK with you

T@lk 08:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yep, sounds good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and I've also added two images of venues that entered the bidding race, per your suggestion below. Picked those two, as they were the first to enter the race, plus one hosted Eurovision in 2001, whilst the other hosted the national selection event for 2013 (culminating towards Denmark's victory). I felt those were more notable for the subject and allusive too.
T@lk 09:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Location

  • Is it worth including a picture of any other venues considered under the Bidding phase subsection?
That sounds like a really bad idea in my mind. The table would be very large and considering the article features many other long tables later on, I would say no. Currently there is a picture of the locations of all the candidate cities, which seems fine.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can open the link fine on my computer.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've repaired the dead link. As for pictures of other venues, that is something that's never been raised before; although I do like the idea. As for the capacities, as far as I'm aware they've been sourced from the respective venue articles.
T@lk 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Are all the capacities in the table sourced somewhere?
Yes, all tables are sourced, but I can understand your confusion as they are sometimes placed in different and somewhat random places, but all are sourced.
speak to me!) 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

That's all for now. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Format

  • It was reported by the EBU that the 2014 Contest was viewed by a worldwide television audience of a record breaking 195 million viewers. This sentence doesn't seem to fit in the context of the paragraph — it threw me for a minute, because one sentence we're establishing jurors and the next it's talking about viewing figures. The previous two years' articles don't seem to have any relevant statistics in the articles, so I'm not sure where it should be put. It could be made into a new paragraph: additionally, the reference used seems to contain other potentially useful statistics (up from 180 million last year, 61 million viewers at any given moment etc.)
It was a reported "record-breaker" for the EBU in terms to viewing figures, that's why viewing figures have never been mentioned before. It was discussed this on the
T@lk 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've just moved that into the broadcasting section, as it seems more appropriate to that, and is topical to the broadcasting theme.
T@lk 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I understand why viewing figures have never been mentioned before and am glad that they are included here. I think they're much better suited to the broadcasting section, so thank you for moving them there. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

  • The Reaction to Russia reference doesn't seem to back up cited facts regarding the final — in fact, the news article appears to have been written before the final took place. The latter citation should be replaced with something which does back up the stated facts about Russia's booing in the final. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The booing occurred both in the semifinal and grand final. The news article may be referring to the semifinal, hence its publication prior to the final. Not sure if there are sources to verify the final, although there are YouTube videos uploaded on the official Eurovision channel that would be able to verify both.
    T@lk 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, try here for a much better source about Russia-related booing during results. (Also, Milonov's "hotbed of sodomy" quote mentioned in the link might warrant a mention somewhere under Incidents: a quick Google search shows other newspaper articles have mentioned it too.) As for booing after their performance, you could try YouTube as a last resort if there are no news articles mentioning it. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source from 'The Independent' is rather a good find. I've used that, and based on its content, have been able to expand details about the incident better, including the booing that occurred whenever Russia received votes.
T@lk 15:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Participating countries

Results

  • Where are the English translations sourced to?
  • The footnote for Latvia says it contains some Latvian phrases. I think the second and third footnotes make it clearer why the languages discussed are not important enough to be listed under the "Language" column ("there is one sentence", "the last line"). But for Latvia, I feel like "Latvian" could be listed along with English in the language column — could the footnote say there are occasional phrases in Latvian, there are Latvian phrases in part(s) X of the song or something similar?
  • "the suspense ended with the 34th vote" — is this not a bit biased? It would sound more neutral to me as, the winner had been determined by the 34th vote.

I'll try and review the rest of the article soon. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The project has a lot of multilingual members who are able to translate the song titles into English. Some I think also used Google Translator.
  2. I think it is safe to ass Latvian in the language column, and thus remove its footnote.
  3. I think whoever added the word "suspense" was getting a little overexcited themselves. I'll reword it now.
    T@lk 19:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

For the song translations, is this not

original research? (Everything else has been addressed, although I made one small edit here.) Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It has never been classified as original research before, in the GA reviews for
T@lk 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
T@lk 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, thanks for the link to
WP:TRANSCRIPTION. The English translations are fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
So sorry guys, I got myself involved with some FA and GA-projects these last two days, so have not been active in the review. I will from now on.
speak to me!) 01:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't worry about it, thankfully you got me on-hand, and I'm pretty use to GA reviews by now (4 under my belt, including ESC2012 & 2013). And I've been working on improving the 2012 and 2013 articles for FA review. In fact, it looks like the Eurovision 2012 article could be on the verge of a promotion from GA to FA. I wouldn't be too surprised if this review is drawing to a close. Although I do need to check something with
T@lk 01:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems you've updated the album information anyway. It's looking good. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I went

T@lk 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I noticed the moving of the Incidents section in the 2012 article; move it in this one if you want, but I think it's fine in either position. As for citations in the lead, I'd leave them there for now — there should be no problem with citations in the lead, but there's not always a need for them. The lead is usually the last part of the article I review, though, so I might change my mind when I've read it properly. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoreboard and Other countries: everything looks fine. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other awards

  • I don't think reference #114 needs to be included in the "OGAE result" column.
  • For the Barbara Dex award, could we not have a sentence similar to the other two awards (e.g. The top five results were as follows:), and put the reference there instead of in every column?

I'll try and get through the rest of the review today. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasts and voting; Official album; See also and External links: Good.

Lead

  • following Emmelie de Forest's win in the 2013 contest in Sweden with the song "Only Teardrops". — is this really relevant enough to be put in the second sentence of the article? Surely Forest's win in the previous year shouldn't be mentioned before Wurst's win this year.
  • three times more than what was expected and were furthermore highly accused of cases of nepotism within the organisation. I think the last clause should be a separate sentence — Organisers were also accused of cases of nepotism within the organisation. I also think nepotism is obscure enough a word to be linked to Wiktionary.
  • The first three sentences of the last paragraph seem like they contain far too much detail: it could be shortened to San Marino and Montenegro both qualified for the final for the first time.
  • I think the Incidents section deserves a bit of mention — maybe say Jokes made about Wurst have sparked controversy. and/or Russia were booed several times during the contest.
  • Also, now that the article includes a section on the album, it might be worth adding a sentence about the album into the lead.
  • Is everything in the lead mentioned later in the article? (
    Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article
    ) This sentence never seems to be expanded upon: With the polarising nature of LGBT rights in western and eastern Europe, Wurst's status as a drag queen has made some consider Austria's victory in the contest as a political statement as well. Neither is the budgeting concerns: 112 million kroner is never used again, although the original budget of 40 million kroner is mentioned under Location. "Nepotism" and ref #11 aren't used outside the lead, either.
  • Referencing: I think many of the refs in the lead could be removed, while other might be best staying, or can at least stay for the time being. I would remove:
  1. Ref #1 (sentence is summary of sourced statements in Location)
  2. Ref #2 (used in infobox)
  3. Refs #12 to #17 (all used later; last 4 especially don't look very good aesthetically)

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to respond to each point separately.
  1. Yes it is relevant. Emmelie's win is what brought the contest to Denmark in the first place. The rules of the contest is that the winning country goes on to hosting the following year's event. However, there have been some occasions were the winning country has rejected to host the following year due to financial costs. This method of noting how the contest has come to the host city, is something that has been done on all articles, and has not been an issue before, as noted in the 2012 GA and 2013 GA reviews.
  2. Whereabouts would you suggest the sentence be moved to? Linking to nepotism would be wise too.
  3. I'll work on shortening those.
  4. I agree, some brief mention of the key incidents, such as jokes on Wurst, and Russia's booing, would be good for the lead.
  5. And I also agree that now there is an album section, that this too should be mentioned.
  6. The issue of users adding content directly into the lead section, without paying attention to what the lead should be used for, has been a long-term problem for
    Project Eurovision
    , and something that needs to be addressed with urgency. If something appears in the lead, that is not mentioned in the main article body, then I'm inclined to say remove it, or expand on it further within the main body.
  7. I'll "clean-up" those refs.
T@lk 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've worked on some of the matters mentioned above, and reshuffled the lead around slightly, to give coherent flow, and based on some comments/suggestions at the previously mentioned FA review.
T@lk 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for addressing my comments.

  1. Okay.
  2. I'd just leave it after the "three times more than expected". I just think it's a bit of a long sentence and the "were furthermore" feels a bit grammatically dodgy. Even just the word "they" before "were furthermore" would help.
  3. Thanks.
  4. Looks good.
  5. Done.
  6. I'm inclined to prefer expansion rather than removal of content that looks quite good, but it can still pass for GA without being
    broad
    enough now.
  1. Okay: it looks much better now.

Everything's been addressed, and I think the article definitely meets

all six GA criteria. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I hope I can still bring a doubt I expressed in the general talk page. It was announced yesterday that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of the 2014 Ondas Award in the International TV production category.Premios Ondas Official Site, Eurovision.tv, DR.dk, Esctoday.com. These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are very well-known in Spain and the ceremony is nationally televised. I'd like to include a small mention in the article, but I don't know where information about this award, or other possible accolades for the contest as a production, should go. The Eurovision Song Contest 2011 broadcast won a Rose D'or award for Best Live Event; in the article it is mentioned in the lead only. Xelaxa (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@
T@lk 18:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]


Final running order screwed up

Could anybody with rollback privileges rollback the edits made by the guy with the IP as a name to the last edit by Wesley Mouse ASAP? He messed the running order and points up. Thanks!

--PootisHeavy (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
✒ 06:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014&oldid=1207151273"