Talk:Eaea

Could the name of the article be changed to "Eaea"? That redirects to this anyway and I can't move the page because there is already a page there (the redirect)

Talk:Eaea

Name change

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the name of the article be changed to "Eaea"? That redirects to this anyway and I can't move the page because there is already a page there (the redirect) Wasabi OS (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 31 May 2023

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eaea (song) → Eaea – Could the name of the article be changed to "Eaea"? That redirects to this anyway and I can't move the page because there is already a page there (the redirect) Wasabi OS (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2023 (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.

GA review

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments2 people in discussion
Passed. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2025 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eaea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply


I'll conduct this review either today or tomorrow. Any suggested improvements marked "optional" aren't part of the GA criteria, so they do not need to be carried out for the article to pass the nomination, but might be useful if you have a FAC planned.

Criteria

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments - likely unintentional use of scare quotes in "Carmen's 'love'" is a violation of MOS:SCAREQUOTES
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's is happy.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comment about chart positions in countries other than Lithuania
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.


Refs

  • Ref 1's name parameter should be removed since the author seems to be using a pseudonym

Spot check: Generated 7 numbers using a random number generator

  • 5: Checks out
  • 9: Checks out
  • 35: Checks out
  • 38: Checks out
  • 52: Checks out
  • 60: Checks out
  • 63: Checks out

Comments

  • new flamenco lullaby in the lead may violate MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • The song drew largely positive reception from both Spanish and international critics and for its flamenco elements, Blanca Paloma's vocal abilities, and its unique musical nature. - "and" is not necessary here
  • fusing with international elements - shouldn't it be "fused" since "features" is already in the present tense
  • described as a lullaby --> "is described as a lullaby" - by whom? (so two concerns in one here)
  • with Blanca Paloma visiting a flamenco dance school - usually "with noun verbing" constructions are discouraged so I'd suggest you reword that
  • Carmen's "love" - why is "love" in quotes - it implies that Carmen didn't actually love her because it looks like scare quotes, which are used ironically
  • representation to the power and strength --> "representation of the power and strength"
  • female ancestors is also expressed via - "also" is not needed here
  • Benidorm Fest 2023 doesn't need to be in italics
  • with the video featuring the addition of chairs; to Blanca Paloma - sentence should probably be split after "chairs" - that sentence is also worded really awkwardly
  • Barcelona Eurovision Party, Israel Calling, Pre-Party ES 2023, Eurovision in Concert, London Eurovision Party don't need to be in italics
  • Amongst Spanish society - probably can be reworded to "in Spain" to be more clear
  • and describing the song as "gratifyingly original" - should be "described"
  • a "very impressive vocal ability" - remove "a"
  • to win anything". - move the quotation mark to after the period
  • Did it not chart in any other country than Lithuania?
  • Honestly, I'm not the one who puts in charts; those are done by other editors who look at the weekly charts each week. After doing a search though, I couldn't find much of anything. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 18:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Alright then. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion

  • I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.


Optional

  • Maybe add IPA for the title of the song?
I'll do that myself after the review, no worries. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2025 (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.

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in 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 result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

(
)
  • ... that "Eaea" is "aggressively Spanish"?
Improved to Good Article status by Nascar9919 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC).Reply

  • No QPQ required, so good here. I don't approve ALT1, as I'm a stickler for not attributing quotes to works rather than the authors. I also prefer ALT0 for how short and goofy it is. It's appropriately sourced and cited. The article got GA'd recent enough. It's certainly long enough. No copyright issues. Great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.