Talk:2015 Paris–Nice

Orphaned references in 2015 Paris–Nice

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2015 Paris–Nice's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CN":

• From Richie Porte: Benson, Daniel (19 February 2012). "Wiggins rounds off Sky's dominance in Algarve". Cycling News. Future Publishing Limited. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
• From 2013 Paris–Nice: "Gaudin surprises in prologue". Cyclingnews.com. Future plc. 3 March 2013. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
• From 2012 Paris–Nice: Benson, Daniel (4 March 2012). "Gustav Erik Larsson takes opening stage". Cycling News. Future Publishing Limited. Retrieved 5 March 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think they're cites that have been copied from previous editions of this race. I'll double-check and action if needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Paris–Nice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Little left to do here, I made some minor fixes myself, as you can see. What you should still adress:

• There is one dead link, the UCI regulations. You should find a substitute here.
• I added a template at Stage 3.
• Stage 1, you write about the intermediate sprint, but the source does not provide those informations. As this constitutes original research, you need to take care of that. It might be helpful to look into the cyclingnews live tickers. I added one myself in the prologue section, where there was also unreferenced information.
• There are a lot of repeat links here. It seems that in cycling articles it is costumary to have the teamname template there every time and so forth, but you should still go through the article and remove unnecessary repeat links.

I put the review on hold for the usual seven days. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and edits. In order:

• Fixed the link with Internet Archive.
• The fact you added {{cn}} to on Stage 3 was cited, but not obviously. I've duplicated the citation to make it clear.
• Yes, you're right; some of the information was in the citation, but not all of it. The CyclingNews race report contains the rest, so I've reused that.
• Looking at repeat links now...

Relentlessly (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I think I've removed all the duplicate links. The team names are present once for each rider in each section; perhaps this is excessive, but it does seem to be the style in most cycling articles. Thanks again for your review – I think I've dealt with all your points. Relentlessly (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly Alright, I'll take a closer look at it later tonight :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well done, especially on the new images and the removal of repeat links, I am sure that was quite a drag. It's now a pass, congratulations :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. It wasn't too bad a task, actually: with Visual Editor in one window and the duplicate links tool in another it took less than ten minutes! Relentlessly (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)