Talk:Ester Peony/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
After spotting questions of this article's quality at DYK, I have come to reassess it in line with the GA criteria.


  • Some odd statements/phrasings.
    • "...she alternately studied classic singing and classic guitar" - this needs clarifying.
She changed between studying the one and the other throughout the years. Have a better idea to put it?
    • "Whilst starting to compose music for Romanian artists, the singer also released her debut single "Cuminte de Crăciun" under her mononym Ester in late 2014" needs rephrasing for standard style and to not bury the lead (e.g. as "She released her debut single... in late 2014. At the same time, she had been composing music for other Romanian artists.")
    • "In 2015, she started posting covers on YouTube which got her attention and a record deal with a Romanian label" needs to be broken down for accuracy. She did not immediately get attention after posting, and not immediately a record deal after that, but it lumps them all as one event. Should be along the lines of "In 2015, she started.. YouTube. The cover videos gained her attention, and she was subsequently offered a record deal with a Romanian label in the same year".
    • Saying she "premiered" a song is weird, how about 'released'. Similarly, "playlisted" is weird, this sentence could be changed to "The song was played on radio and television stations across the country"
 Done Just clarifying that "playlisted" is a valid forumlation, but I did it the way you wanted it.
    • "She would eventually embark... in 2016" whoa, after a few months? Ditch the intro and put 'In 2016' or 'The next year' at the front of this sentence instead.
    • Is Vescan a label, a featured artist, something else? It appears twice and neither makes it clear.
 Done It's an artist.
    • "on which she acted as one of the main composers" is not wrong, but a little strange - it's better as "for which she was also one of the main composers"
    • "the Romanian Television (TVR) announced" is grammatically incorrect; it should either be simply "Romanian Television (TVR) announced" or "the television station Romanian Television (TVR) announced".
    • "Israel after winning the selection show" -> "Israel, after she won the selection show"
    • "to mixed reactions from the public" -> Grammar; should be a new sentence starting "The announcement was met with mixed..."
    • "2019 was TVR's first year to significantly invest in a performance; the costs for the use of graphics and special effects during Peony's performance amounted to 100,000 euros" Is poor. How about changing it to "In 2019, TVR were able to spend significant amounts on their Eurovision entry for the first time; they spent about 100,000 Euros on the visual and special effects in the performance."
    • There shouldn't be an "and" between "second" and "consecutive", in both instances it's used. You could change it to "second consecutive (and second overall)" in the body, but this is excessive detail in the lead.
    • Talking about her post-Eurovision record deal should be separate line or come with a connecting phrase in front.
 Done Added a bit of text, but it may be wrongly worded—please correct.
    • "Her stage name mentions the peony flowering plant" -> "Her stage name refers to the peony flower." (flowering plant is a long-winded way of saying 'flower', and it doesn't 'mention', it is)
    • "it translates to Romanian as "bujor", which alludes to a part of her mother's name" -> "In Romanian, "peony" translates to "bujor", which refers to part of her mother's name"
    • No need to include the speculative etymology of her real name.
    • "As of 2019, Peony has been in a relationship for around six years with Alexandru Şerbu, the producer of "On a Sunday"." -> "Peony has been in a relationship with Alexandru Şerbu since about 2013; Şerbu acted as producer for "On a Sunday"."
    • You can finish the faith sentence at "God", the rest could be deemed controversial.
  • Does living in Canada need to be in the lead? Seems unnecessary, and also confusing, as I initially thought she was in Canada when writing music, but the body says she returned to Romania age 12.
 Done Removed it per your suggestion
  • Section structure is odd - lumping in Early life with Career is not standard, nor is "Artistry" with Personal life. If anything, the pairs should be swapped, but a structure going Early life -> Career & influences -> Personal life would be standard.
 Done I have created "Early life" and "Career", but I don't think that "Influences" go es well with "Career" at all here, so I thought of mixing it together to "Influences and personal life". Is that ok?
  • Fails 1a (good prose)
  • Fails 1b (good structure)


  • Sources include tabloids and showbiz gossip, which are not necessarily RS. One or two uncontroversial statements are fine, but the article uses a bunch of these sources, and as the only source for things that need an accurate check.
    • "TicTop" is used as a source for her composing credits that can't be found on iTunes, with the other credits sourced to iTunes. If you can't find it on iTunes or Tidal or Discogs, it's not that plausible.
 Done The source is not needed since it's already in the Biography TVR wrote for her.
    • "Wowbiz" also used for a composing claim.
 Done Removed since it's backed by the other sources too.
    • "Libertatea" used to source what is supposedly widespread controversy; this is a tabloid published only in Bucharest, and the claim doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere.
First of all Libertatea is a reliable source, but I have also added a German language source to back up the controversy. This was one of the biggest scandals (the fact that she won over another contestant) of the Eurovision season, and it definitely needs to be mentioned.
    • "Cancan" article (with a headline about a potential conspiracy about her) used to cite pure speculation on why she chose her actual real name. Might as well bring up the etymology page, not that this is even relevant.
  • Some statements appear unsourced, only for three sources to appear at the end of three sentences. Spread them out at the end of each or, if different statements within sentences come from among the sources, add a ref/refs per cited statement. Sources are repeated elsewhere, as they should be in confusing instances like this.
I think things look better now. If you think there's other instances please point them out.
  • Passes 2a (has a list of sources)
  • Fails 2b (RS inline citations)
  • Passes 2c (no OR)


  • Could have more detail on how she got from YouTube to a record deal; who were the key players? Who was the record deal with?
Sadly this isn't mentioned by the sources.
  • Then, why did she self-publish her EP? Was she dropped? Creative differences? Pure choice?
It might be pure choice, but again not mentioned by the sources sorry.
  • Comparatively, as I've mentioned a few times, there's a poorly-sourced few sentences on speculative etymology on her real name. This doesn't belong here: she didn't choose her actual name, and unless her parents explain why they gave her it, it shouldn't be included - especially poorly sourced.
 Done already
  • Passes 3a (addresses main aspects) There are places where there perhaps should be more detail, but the main aspects are addressed
  • Fails 3b (focused) Yeah, random info isn't focused, especially when it's half the content of a whole section


  • Passes 4 Generally neutral; I wouldn't stick a POV tag on it


  • This was passed GA on August 4, and immediately after there was a significant edit to the article (not to prose or a bad edit, though with a questionable source). Since then it has also seen an edit by the GA nominator removing text immediately after it was added by the other main contributor with the edit reason "This is really unneeded", so I'm not confident it will be stable. However, it is ok for now.
  • Passes 5


  • Passes 6b Contains relevant commons images. Contains appropriate number of images for length.


  • Copyvio flagged but it's largely from a WP mirror [1] Though there is one sentence that's been copied wholesale from the TVR source, this is the only instance.
  • Images on commons tagged correctly, licenses checked
  • Passes 2b and 6a


It passes certain criteria well; unfortunately, it quite severely fails other criteria. The prose needs a lot of work, the article needs to be restructured. Though this would only take a day or so, the search for better sources may take longer, and I wouldn't like it to remain GA-class whilst in such limbo. I'd say it fails GA review.

GA reviews are collaborative, so not just the original nominator can improve the article and respond to the review. Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll work on this soon. Meanwhile pinging @MWright96:. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Have you made any headway? Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I'll get to this until Friday and I'll answer to your comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Hey. Unfortunately I'll only get to this until next Sunday since my schedule is kind of full at the moment. I did not forget about this and I promise everything will be adressed by then. Greetings; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I've worked through your comments. Let me know what you make of the article now. Greetings; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: made a few tweaks but it looks good now. Passes GA. Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)