This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Makes more sense to merge the two together, as Kvalifikacija was the "semi-final" of its time, and the Eurovision article does mention the pre-qualification round and also includes the participation table too. Merging would expand that article much better and bring it in-line with the ESC articles since the introduction of the semifinal round in 2004. Wes MouseT@lk08:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Unlike the 2004-onwards semi-finals, this was seen as a one-off event arranged separately from the main contest, and should be considered such on Wikipedia. Lilduff90 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the language of the Bosnia and Herzegovina song from "Bosnian" to "Serbo-Croatian". Bosnian language as an official term did not exist in 1993. The official language of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was Serbo-Croatian throughout all of its existence. The first official usage of the term "Bosnian language" came in 1994 with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a year after this competition). In the Constitution of the FB&H, official languages were Bosnian and Croatian languages (see [1]). So, there is no basis to call the language of the song "Bosnian" when Bosnian language officially did not exist at the moment. Vanjagenije(talk)15:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back this up? As Wikipedia is based around reliable sourcing, although this may be true, all sources we have on the article right now describe the song as being performed in Bosnian. If there are any sources that describe "Sva bol svijeta" as being performed in Serbo-Croatian then I would support changing this, but until then it should remain as Bosnian given that is what the sources we have indicate. In addition, I am struggling to find when "Bosnian" as a term for the language was first used, so while I do not doubt your statement above I cannot verify it; hence the requirement for good sources that back up changes like this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
1. Well-written
For the second year in a row the winner... add comma after "row".
Twenty-two of the twenty-three countries which had participated... should be "that" instead of "which".
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Eurovision Song Contest... add comma after "1990s".
...by 1992 an increasing number of countries had begun expressing an interested in joining the event... should be "interest" instead of "interested".
...and could use instrumental-only backing tracks, however any backing tracks... There should be either a semicolon after "tracks" and then a comma after "however", or this should be split into two separate sentences.
Following each first rehearsal there was an opportunity for delegates... add comma after "rehearsal".
An audience was present for the second dress rehearsal in the evening of 12 May... use "on" instead of "in"
2. Verifiable Earwig's Copyvio check is fine. Sources are reliable and formatted correctly.
Spot check:
Source 18 needs to be archived (it's now a blank page)
@Riley1012: Thank you for your review! I have completed the prose tweaks and corrections as suggested. Regarding ref. 18, I went to find a live version of the same webpage, however I noticed that they had since added that Wikipedia was the original source of the information, so I have removed this source per WP:CIRCULAR and commented out the supported prose until a better ref can be found. I have done a thorough sweep of all other sources and I am confident that this was the only issue.
Regarding the country broadcasts with missing refs, there are no direct references available for those specific countries, however they would be covered indirectly through the same refs used in the participants table (18 and 19). As an example, while there is no direct source to support the broadcast in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they were a participant and the contest is a television programme, per the rules of the contest their participating broadcaster RTVBiH would have been required to broadcast the event. The broadcaster in particular is listed on the individual participants pages on the official Eurovision website (ref 18, see here). As a solution these pages could be used to support broadcast information when there are no secondary sources available, e.g. TV listings in newspapers, however I also understand this may be too much of a WP:SYNTH issue, and would understand if your original suggestion to remove these rows from the table still stands. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I didn't notice the broadcasters were listed in another source. That's fine with me, I'll go ahead and pass the article. -Riley1012 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 15. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If the nominator feels that they have done less than 20 noms this can go forward or they can do the double. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tool actually missed three DYKs from 2008, back when DYK acknowledgements were posted by people rather than bots, but that still only gives a count of 18, so this nomination doesn't require a second QPQ. Restoring Coretheapple's original tick. Only another two DYK nominations before backlog mode kicks in. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]