Talk:2016 Paris–Nice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (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:

What needs to be done:

• Participating teams: The sentence on how World Tour teams are obliged to send a squad with the corresponding reference is missing here.
• Prologue: Put a citation at the end of the first paragraph or move the last sentence into the next paragraph.
• Stage 2: You do not make a causality between Bouhanni's behavior in the sprint and his relegation, this needs to be phrased a little more clearly.
• Stage 3: Writing The first stage at the start of the report sounds misleading. Better would be "The first part".
• Stage 5: if I can survive Saturday -> use a bracket paranthesis to explain which stage he is talking about.

I think that's it. I notive that you are away right now. Let me know when you are back, then you'll have seven days for all four reviews starting at that point. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Took care of everything myself. Passed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)