Talk:2011 Tour de France/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Review

I'll review this. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Findings

This a GA review of 2011 Tour de France.

No worries on the WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures front with all four criteria passed:

1. it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:
2. it contains copyright infringements:
3. it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}:
4. the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:

As a result, a full review has been undertaken and the findings are as follows:

• Article size is well over 100k but there is no WP:LENGTH issue as much of the content is in tabular form and the readable prose size is 24k, which is fine.

• Excellent images in use, especially the route map.

• Just out of interest, why do cycling teams change their names so often?

  Unlike other sports, cycling is free to watch in person, so teams are reliant on sponsors. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Try to avoid redirects as in "Teams" where UCI ProTeam redirects to UCI WorldTeam. Which of these is correct here? If the former, then use a pipe.

  ProTeam is the former name. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• State a brief reason for the obligation placed on the pro teams to enter the race. What would happen if one of them refused?

  At least a fine. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please pipe Bunch sprint into Glossary of cycling#bunch sprint. Same with Spring classics into Classic cycle races#Spring classics.

  I've done that because they may become an articles in the future. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hushovd is described as the "world road race champion" but the link is to 2015 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race, four years later.

  Fixed. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are a number of grammar and syntax errors in "Route and stages" which should have been copyedited out. I've already done some of these but I'd like an editor to check for these and iron them out, thanks. For example, "...as early as the Pyrenees,". To celebrated the centenary...": rogue comma and "celebrated".

  "...as early as the Pyrenees," is a quote.

• Link to Brittany.

  Fixed. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please pipe Prologue (cycling) into Glossary of cycling#prologue.

  Same as above. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think a prologue should be briefly explained, thus: "instead of a prologue (i.e., individual time trial), the last occasion being in 2008". This is especially so given mention of "individual time trial" on the next line.
• Done. BaldBoris
• In the stage winners table, no flag for Garmin–Cervélo which is an American team. Seems inconsistent.

  A teams country of registration isn't used for races, only in the UCI Road World Championships – Men's team time trial (since 2012). BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• The "Race overview" and "Classification leadership" sections are well-written with a lot of information.

• Useful tabulations to finish the article.

Could you please attend to the above points where necessary and I think this will pass. Placing on hold for seven days. Well done. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review. I have fixed what I can for the moment. Will be back tomorrow. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine now, Boris. I'm passing it per the checklist below. Very good work. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Scope:

   B. Length:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: