Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1974

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hosting

[edit]

I would just like to know why this contest was held in Brighton even though Luxembourg won the 1973 contest.

Luxembourg is a small country and they found it to be too expensive to host the contest twice in a row. Mike H. Fierce! 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Controversies and political events

[edit]

It states on this page for 'Eurovision Song Contest 1974,' that Sweden won the contest with a score of 24 points, which represented just 15% of the possible available vote and that such a low percentage had never been achieved since, but it was still higher than the 12% achieved by each of the four winners in 1969.

If you go to: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Eurovision_Song_Contest_winners, it states that the lowest percentage score ever, was in 1972, where Luxembourg received only 8.30% of the possible vote. That Sweden received 14.12% (not 15%)of the possible available votes in 1974 and that lower percentages than that HAVE been recorded since, in fact in 30 different years since. All in all, 34 countries have won the contest by a lower overall percentage of the votes score, than Sweden did in 1974.

The four winners in 1969 shared 11.25% of the possible vote each, not 12% as stated on this page.

Just thought i'd point out these other statistics, that contradict the satistics mentioned on this page for 'Eurovision Song Contest 1974.' Butdavid (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previews

[edit]

The data for the German produced preview programmes needs verification. The UK entry was not announced until March 2, 1974, although the result of the postcard vote would have been known to the BBC a few days beforehand. Regardless, it would thus not have been possible for the Auftakt für Brighton (Prelude for Brighton) show to have aired six weeks ahead of the Brighton final. This data thus needs verification or should be removed as inaccurate.50.247.76.51 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent research shows the claim was bogus. ARD aired the show on March 27 & 28. The article has thus been adjusted to reflect better accuracy about the previews. 50.247.76.51 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandie Shaw

[edit]

Several editors have added that Sandie Shaw was in the audience, stating that she is "clearly visible". Sandie Shaw was not in the audience and thus isn't visible at any moment in the broadcast. Please stop reinstating this nonsense in the article.180.169.136.58 (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was added again in 2023. I have removed it and posted a comment to the editor who reinstated this nonsense. MWEditorial (talk) MWEditorial (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Ligaturama (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1974/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ligaturama (talk · contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'll pick this up for review. Hopefully a love of ABBA won't make me too biased. Ligaturama (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (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

1a

Generally excellent, just a few small notes.

  • which according to tradition would have made Luxembourg the presumptive host in 1974 - I'd go with just "made Luxembourg the presumptive host". "Presumptive" already implies that they would be the host by default, so the "would have" just confuses it a little. This would be consistent with the article body.
  • completed in 1805 and originally built for the Prince Regent (who would later succeed to the British throne as George IV) as stables and a riding school for his personal use. - the bit in brackets is a bit irrelevant, I think it can be removed.
  • performed by Anne-Marie David, which, according to Eurovision tradition, made Luxembourg the presumptive host of the 1974 contest. - comma placement, either "Anne-Marie David which, according to Eurovision tradition, made..." or "Anne-Marie David which according to Eurovision tradition made..." The article lead uses the latter.
  • Awarding the contest to ITV would have effectively barred the BBC from participating, as only one broadcaster from a given country can participate in the event, resulting in the BBC submitting a counter-offer which the EBU subsequently accepted on 7 June 1973. I don't really understand what this means; why was it an issue that the BBC couldn't participate but it didn't matter if ITV couldn't? Also, I think you can remove the "subsequently".
  • Among the other venues... - paragraph probably belongs beneath the description of the Dome, rather than under subheading Host Selection.
  • Ultimately, however, only seventeen participating entries were performed - either remove "however" here as it was used in the previous sentence, or change the one in the previous sentence to "but".
  • in 1964, and 1969, respectively - these two commas aren't needed
  • artists were able to perform in any language, and not necessarily that of the country their represented. - "their" should be "they"
  • Rehearsals with the competing acts commenced the following day, with each participating act having a 50-minute slot on stage to perform through their entry with the orchestra; the first rehearsals for all countries were held over two days on 3 and 4 April and were conducted without their stage costumes. - you've already said rehearsals for acts started the following day (the 3rd) so I suggest condensing this information like "The first rehearsals with the competing acts for all countries were held over the succeeding two days, with each participating act having a 50-minute slot on stage to perform through their entry with the orchestra, but without their stage costumes."
  • The 1974 Eurovision Song Contest has retroactively gained notoriety for a number of aspects - is "notoriety" the right word here? Most of the section is how it was a launchpad for ABBA and Olivia Newton-John.
  • after starring in the film musicals Grease and Xanadu - Grease link should be to Grease (film)
    • @Ligaturama: All comments above have been resolved. Regarding the BBC/ITV issue, as the BBC had been the host of Eurovision within the United Kingdom since its creation, this was more an attempt to convey the BBC's concern that they could be undercut by a commercial rival, which would have potentially led to ITV replacing the BBC in future events as the UK broadcaster. Happy to continue to work on this sentence if you still have concerns. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. That explanation makes sense, I think I read it as the EBU being complicit in helping the BBC cut out ITV because the sentence starts with "Awarding the contest to ITV...". I suggest a reword to something like "A successful ITV bid would have effectively barred..." If there's any further information on why the EBU selected the BBC over ITV then that could give some helpful context to round it off a little, but that's optional.
Everything else looks spot on, good work! Ligaturama (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ligaturama: Good suggestion! I've now resolved this final point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2a

  • There are some references that are duplicated so can be consolidated into one named ref, for consistency with the others that already are:
    • The Eurovision "How it Works" page [1]
    • Songs for Europe vol. 2 by Roxburgh
      • While the source itself is used across multiple references, each reference has different page numbers (e.g. 142–148; 149–161; 161–163). Essentially the book is divided into chapters for each contest, so there's a chapter on 1974, but within those chapters there are individual sections or parts which are broken down into different areas, some of which are titled and others not. In order to keep the referencing layout consistent, instead of creating a different section for bibliography and other references, these have been combined and any books used are split in this way when necessary. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2b

  • Israel was also some distance geographically from the core of Western European nations which participated in the event at this time, and IBA still lagged behind many European broadcasters from a technological perspective. Awarding the contest to ITV would have effectively barred the BBC from participating, as only one broadcaster from a given country can participate in the event, resulting in the BBC submitting a counter-offer which the EBU subsequently accepted on 7 June 1973. I assume this is to be supported by the citation at the end of the next paragraph, but it should be cited at the end of this paragraph too.

Spot checks

Numbers are from revision ID 1221565003

  • 1a Green tickY
  • 1b Red XN The linked page doesn't show that the UK hosted in place of other countries; the closest thing it says is "The United Kingdom has hosted the Eurovision Song Contest 9 times (if we include upcoming Liverpool 2023), stepping in to stage the event when others were unable to do so". Individual links to the pages such as [2] would work.
    Green tickY Ligaturama (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5/28/79 Red XN Following the group's win, "Waterloo" went on to top the charts in multiple European countries, including the UK singles chart, as well as reaching the top ten in the Billboard Hot 100. References don't mention it getting to no. 1 in the UK singles chart.
    • This is covered in ref 28: As if to underline how out of touch it all was, four weeks later, Waterloo was the UK No 1, and we all know how things played out for Abba thereafter. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY Whoops, my mistake, apologies. Ligaturama (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 Green tickY
  • 7 Green tickY
  • 13 Green tickY
  • 30 Green tickY
  • 31 Green tickY
  • 43 Green tickY
  • 66 Green tickY
  • 78 Green tickY
  • 79a Green tickY
  • 79c ? Don't think this adds anything
  • 79d ? Source indicates that the hits were in the latter half of the 1970s as well, so I suggest a little rewording to reflect that
  • 84 Green tickY
  • 85 Green tickY
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

[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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Sims2aholic8 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: Recent GA, and likewise reads great, no copy vio. All the hooks are nicely sourced. I have a strong preference of ALT3 followed by ALT0. AlT2 rather feels a bit dull, and ALT1 reads a bit too detailed/complicated comparing with the other two. Awaiting QPQ. X (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved (strong preference of ALT3 followed by ALT0).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_1974&oldid=1228389278"