Good articleSan Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSan Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest is the main article in the San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2021Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 9, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that televoting for San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest is simulated by a pre-selected group of countries?
Current status: Good article

GA vs FL[edit]

A similar article Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest was suggested to be a Featured List instead. I feel that this one has much more prose than that. Looking for feedback before any potential GA review. Grk1011 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grk1011 You are correct, this should be a GAN because not only does it have clearly enough prose, but it is written in a similar manner to the articles for annual participation in the contest. --K. Peake 19:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will start reviewing this soon, probably tomorrow --K. Peake 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you have thoughts RE my comment on the article's talk page, above? Grk1011 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Contest history

Clarified the wording. Grk1011 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find this one. Grk1011 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been something that has since been removed from prose after the responses to my spot checks. --K. Peake 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selection process

Voting

The Wiwibloggs ref calls it a "composite vote" so I changed the wording to that instead? Grk1011 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that despite being mentioned, it does not seem to be sourced as an alternative specifically? --K. Peake 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional ref. Grk1011 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants

Added refs for each one, but hopefully eventually I'll be able to find a summary ref.. Grk1011 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related involvement

Heads of delegation

Jury members

Commentators and spokespersons

Gallery

See also

Notes

References

External links

This is for the Junior contest. Would there be a more fitting location to bring attention to this or do you believe it is not needed at all? Grk1011 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no links included here, but you should keep the templates below the reflist when the section has been removed... --K. Peake 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I was looking at the see also section. Fixed. Grk1011 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict

Should be all set. A couple comments/explanations above. Grk1011 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grk1011 Thank you for the quick response; I have left some replies above! --K. Peake 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those two items have been addressed! Grk1011 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grk1011  Pass now, very good to have one of your articles become a GA the same day as the review again! --K. Peake 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know[edit]

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 result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Grk1011 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Grk1011: New enough GA. Need a QPQ. No textual issues. ALT0 is OK and checks out to sources and interesting; ALT1 needs an inline citation somewhere where "19th place" is said. Ping me when a QPQ is supplied and ALT1 has had a citation for 19th inserted into the text body. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I would prefer ALT0. Will do the QPQs within the next few days. Grk1011 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I've reviewed Bang (Rita Ora and Imanbek EP) for QPQ. Grk1011 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Definitely prefer ALT0. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]