# Talk:Amnesia (Roxen song)

I've hidden the Eurovision-related content from this entry because none of the sources say that this is the song is Roxen's Eurovision entry. Even if it is very likely to be her song, and everyone expects it to be, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, even if an announcement will be released in a few hours. Once an announcement has been made, feel free to remove the comment tags. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 23:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need so much information and details about all the Romanian entries in Eurovision? I find this very odd, especially since non qualifying entries from Romania have tons of irrelevant information and actual Eurovision winning songs have only a few lines written down. Porcina|Talk 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Porcina: Each Romanian Eurovision entry is notable since it participates in such a prestigious and grand event that is Eurovision. Thus, they receive moderate to a lot of media coverage, hence why we get so many information. Things about the composition, background and anything related to the Eurovision performance are always notable. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia about a notable subject is allowed to have a lengthy article written about it. And just because a song did not qualify doesn't take any of its rights of having a well-written article about it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I do get that and I know very well what the Eurovision Song Contest is but to me it doesn't make any sense to have such lengthy articles about unsuccessful Eurovision entries while most of the winning songs have very little information on their articles. It's very important to treat these songs by their importance, not simply based on the fact they are representing your country at Eurovision. I strongly believe that having such lengthy articles for the Romanian entries doesn't improve the standards of Wikipedia, it simply makes it come across as a fan fiction website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcina (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Porcina: @BabbaQ: @BugsFan17: By your logic, only significant and powerful countries such as the United States would be allowed to have lengthy articles, while smaller, not-as-significant ones such as Romania or Luxembourg would have to be limited to short articles. This is not how Wikipedia works. If a subject is somehow notable, then it deserves to have an article as lengthy as other topics that are 'more' notable. There is no "this is how much you can write about your topic if it has the grade X of importance" calculation on Wikipedia. I, for example, like to edit articles about Romania, and as long as I add suitable content from reliable sources to those notable articles, please let me do that. I'm linking you to the article for fan fiction; please read the definition of it there and understand that it has nothing to do with the cited and sourced work that I/we do on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I know very well what fan fiction means and please don't play it sassy with me because it doesn't work. I said it comes across as fan fiction and that's exactly the feeling I got after reading the articles of the Romanian entries. You haven't even replied to what I said and you completely misunderstood my point, so let's try again. It's all about prioritizing. You want to improve the quality of the Wikipedia articles for Eurovision? Great, I don't have anything against that, but you should start with the *real* relevant Eurovision songs such as the winning ones or those which have charted at least in more than one country to start with. Having such lengthy articles for Romanian entries which have failed to qualify from the semifinals, have failed to chart even in Romania and simply didn't become relevant in any way even in the Eurovision fandom is not only not necessary but can also be very misleading for the Wikipedia readers. I strongly believe that what you're doing is not improving Wikipedia standards in any way, on the contrary.  Once again because it looks like you didn't understand my point the last time, it has nothing to do with the country (hence you mentioned if it was a US song it could have a lengthy article), it has everything to do with those songs themselves!!!! - I hope that you manage to read this in a less defensive way and understand that what I'm saying here is constructive criticism. I will leave it now up to the admins, but I strongly believe what you're doing is a big mistake for Wikipedia quality wise. Porcina (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: What'd I do? --BugsFan17 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
All I have to say is that as long as the information is sourced, then it should be included. This is the structure of Eurovision song articles. Is there really an issue here? I don’t see one.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Secondly, this is not the place for a general discussion about Eurovision-song articles. It should be held over at the Eurovision projects talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Porcina: @BabbaQ: @BugsFan17: I do agree with BabaQ. This is my last ping for all of you here, but if you feel like this needs to be further discussed, please take this to the Eurovision WikiProject talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Porcina: We are a group of volunteers. Cartoon network freak cares about Romania's entries and chooses to edit them because of that. It's not any one editor's fault that some winning songs have short or poorly written articles. The spirit of Wikipedia is that we can edit what we want. If it bothers you that some of them are underdeveloped, I would suggest you focus on improving them. To expect that any one of us are going to use our spare time to edit specific articles that we may not care about is a stretch. It is not fair to go after a one editor who did a great job and who has really raised the bar for what we should expect for other articles. To lighten the mood, ask me how I felt about dedicating the entire month of March to bringing all of San Marino's articles to GA when all of the songs were soooo bad! Let's all work together to improve all the articles within the project. Teamwork is the best strategy. Grk1011 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amnesia (Roxen song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I will start this review soon, though it may take a few days since I am working rather often. --K. Peake 09:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Producers shouldn't be listed under their surnames in the infobox since this is not a track listing, unless those are the stage names.
""Amnesia" lyrically talks combatting" → "the song's lyrics discuss combatting"
Are you sure the "by music critics" part should be used when it's only two sources cited that made the comparison and if not, maybe use music critics to start the following sentence?
I would have suggested for that information to stay there since the similarities are really evident and since the reviewers are reliable. I can remove it, though, if it bothers you. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You should just remove the mention of music critics from this sentence, as the info itself is relevant but they shouldn't be mentioned when there was only two. --K. Peake 06:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
"applauded "Amnesia", with praise concentrated on the track's" → "applauded the former, with praise concentrated on its"
Wikilink music video
"over her fears." → "over her surrounding fears." to be specific
""Amnesia" as Romania's entry" → "Roxen as Romania's contestant and "Amnesia" as the nation's entry"
Mention the semi-finals were "where she placed 12th"


### Background and release
Shouldn't "better known under the name of" be "better known under the stage name of" instead to create less confusion?
Maybe mention that the promotional campaign was for artists to be specific, especially since it's relevant in a song article?
I corrected that. I think it's relevant here since the reader may ask themselves why the song was released by Warner and not by Roxen's label Global. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"available in stores" → "available to the public" per the source
"on the same day on" → "on the same day via" to be less repetitive


### Composition and reception
Change the prose preceding ballad to swapping the order of melancholic and dark, per which one [6] mentions next to the word
"that had a similar" → "that has a similar"
"but which is a departure" → "though marked a departure"
Remove Wiwibloggs introduction to Percy since it is already known that she writes for that publication from the previous section
Change "modern and youthful" to "modern and stunning" per the source
The "thumping finale" part is not sourced, also the verses are called "soulful" and mention the song ends on a chorus per the source
There was a glitch with the references given. I fixed that now, so you should go over your previous comments again. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"alongside the song's catchy nature" → "alongside its catchy nature"
Remove comma after ESCUnited
AutoTune → Auto-Tune
"as "poor" and as having a" → "as "poor" and noted its"
Why is "Get Up" piped to a Eurovision Song Contest article?
It was one of the tracks shortlisted to represent Czech Republic that year. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure "selected" is the correct term for the countries?
"selected" means "a few", so yes, it's good to use here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
To make the second para four sentences, shouldn't you split the Single Tip ranking into another sentence "The song further charted at number 26 on..."?
I think this is unnecessary since we would have a lot of short sentences then. I guess the length is okay. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Ultratip Bubbling Under to Ultratip per MOS:LINK2SECT
No, I am only talking about this sentence... the others can remain as they are and this is the one that can be split due to the second chart having a comma after the position is listed. --K. Peake 06:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


### Lyrical interpretation
"delves on combatting" → "delves into combatting"
"referring to this" → "with Roxen referring to this"
Why is [...] used before the line about people when this is next to the previous one in the actual source?
There is a glitch in the source itself. They suggest that the lyric ending in "lose control" and the one starting with "people" are next to each other in the song, where there are some more inbetween in the song. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


### Music video and promotion
Wikilink music video on the img text
Remove the "for "Amnesia"" part after accompanying music video
"and the Eurovision Song Contest" → "and the Eurovision Song Contest's"
"elaborated that it" → "explained that it"
The ESCXtra source does not directly state that she performed her Eurovision entry; try to find a source that does so
I personally think this is not needed since that is the whole purpose of the event, and that is why the participants from (almost) all the other countries are invited. The Eurovision entry is alway performed by the artists. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


### At Eurovision
#### Before Rotterdam
"Like for the cancelled" → "Following on from the cancelled"
Remove pipe on 2021 contest
"broadcaster TVR's collaboration with the singer's label Global Records." → "TVR's collaboration with Global Records."
Which source actually says the jury selected "Amnesia" as the entry? Also, you don't need a comma before and; move the refs to the end of the sentence instead.
"to the contest venue" → "to the contest's venue"


#### In Rotterdam
Img looks good!
"on 18 and 20 May," → "on 18 and 20 May, respectively,"
Pipe final to Eurovision Song Contest 2021#Final
Change "Big 5" to "Big Five" and pipe to Big Five (Eurovision) per MOS:LINK2SECT
Shouldn't you pipe the different countries to their Eurovision articles?
This is unnecessary. Plus, we would have to link the countries to their "X in the Eurovision Song Contest" not "X in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021" articles since their Big Five status is not in 2021 only. We only link countries to their 2021 articles. Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Pipe first semi-final to Eurovision Song Contest 2021#Semi-final 1
"on 9 and 12 May," → "on 9 and 12 May 2021,"
"an oversided hoody," → "an oversized hoodie,"
"execute an "elaborated"" → "execute an "elaborate"" per the sourcing
"and the staging" → "and the show's staging"
"on the LED screen." → "on the screen." to avoid being repetitive
"prominently belts out a" → "attempts to belt out a"
she does not only attempt to do it, she also does it :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Reintroduction to the publication Meersman writes for is not needed
Either remove the "beautiful and symbolic" part or reword the prose to specify that the latter used this quote


##### Points awarded to Romania
"for the Grand Final;" → "for the grand final;"
"which included ten" → "which included 10" per MOS:NUM
"and ten from" → "and 10 from"
Shouldn't you add the appropriate ref to the table?
I think this in not necessary since its content is already cited and sourced in the para above it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


### Track listing
Good


### Charts
Good


### Release history
Shouldn't Warner be piped to Warner Music Poland?


### References
Copyvio score looks a bit too high at 42.9%; cut down direct quoting from Wiwibloggs a bit to fix this
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 13
Wikilink Music Business Worldwide on ref 4
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 10
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 14 and format the date parameter correctly so its title does not show up in the article
Pipe Eurovision.de to Eurovision Song Contest
Pipe Romania Television to TVR (TV network) on ref 22
Why is European Broadcasting Union formatted differently on ref 44 from all of the other ones?


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; sorry about the slow review, I've been quite busy. --K. Peake 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Kyle Peake: and @Cartoon network freak:. I responded to few of the comments above and archived few references; I saw @Cartoon network freak wasn't present for a certain time, so I hope it was okay. My gratitude to both of you!--Lorik17 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Thank you very much for your review, and sorry for responding so late, but I was really busy with school and personal stuff :/ Things are looking better now, though :) I have solved your comments except for those I left responses on. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Cartoon network freak It is fine since I have work anyway, I have now left comments where we are at disagreements. --K. Peake 06:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Cartoon network freak  Pass now, I re-added the critical reception to the lead since you must have gotten confused with what I wanted removed about music critics from there. --K. Peake 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr: I agree that it would be convenient for an infobox to generate a short description, but I'm not seeing one either on mobile (logged out) or by CSS which makes the SD visible (works on other pages).  Do we need to change the infobox somehow to generate a SD? Certes (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that most song articles usually omit the short description as it is generated by the infobox which is why I removed it. However, looking now, I saw that it doesn't appear on my phone either, so I guess it can stay. I don't know why as it seems everything is alright with the infobox. Apologies. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this.  I'll put the short description back temporarily, and it can be removed again once the infobox generates one.  This page popped up on a search as English Wikipedia's only GA without a SD, so I think it would benefit from one. Certes (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)