# Talk:Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

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)


### 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)


### 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,"
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


### 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!
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


#### 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
I removed this section. The CD single was apparently promo only, so finding reliable sources for what that entailed wasn't possible, as such I also removed the cover photo. I added a synopsis to the video, but also moved it to the section above. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


### At Eurovision
Move the img to the left please to avoid overlap
Change the United Kingdom to the UK in prose
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


#### 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)
Grk1011 I understand the above comments, however the EBU refs should not also cite Eurovision.tv and you need to pipe Kent Online to KM Media Group since it is currently not linked anywhere. --K. Peake 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Done, except I'm going to have to leave the eurovision.tv since there's no guideline against it's inclusion. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


### Bibliography
Pipe Carlton Books to Welbeck Publishing Group
Done. Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


### 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)
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)
Hi @Kyle Peake: should be all set! A couple comments above but otherwise I think it's looking good! Thank you! Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Grk1011 I think the issue with the eurovision.tv are that the refs are already citing a publisher clearly so the other part is not needed, whereas the music video sentence needs a ref invoked after it please. --K. Peake 09:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The way I read it, European Broadcasting Union and eurovision.tv are sufficiently different enough to warrant both fields being populated. The exceptions in the guideline where you would only use one pertain to scenarios where they are the same or very similar i.e. "publisher=Eurovision Song Contest" and "website=eurovision.tv"; that's not the case here. With respect to the video synopsis, MOS:PLOTSOURCE would be the relevant guideline and it states that it does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. With this in mind, I kept to obvious descriptions that anyone who watches the video could easily make, without going into the meaning or interpretation, which would definitely need a source link. Grk1011 (talk)
 Pass now, I am very happy with your response here! --K. Peake 13:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)