Talk:Ineos Grenadiers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. Relentlessly (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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:

I was originally writing this up as an "on hold". Truth be told, however, it's quite a long way from being ready. You can see where I got to with the detailed review here (I stopped at ~500 words), but the issues are bigger than the granular ones there.

First, there are a lot of broken references. Worse, many of these are to team press releases. These are not reliable sources. There are other significant parts of the article that are unreferenced. These include sections of paragraphs, and even the whole "Team management" section, where the reference bears no relation to the facts cited.

Second, article composition. There is an enormous imbalance between, for example, the 2015 Giro and the 2011 Tour. Porte's wheel-change incident takes half a paragraph, while Wiggins's broken collarbone got a sentence. Or compare the 2012 Tour, an historic moment that's dealt with in less than Stage 10 of the 2015 Tour. There's a lot of recentism, where recent stuff has far, far more detail than older stuff, so the article feels imbalanced. Lots of the detail belongs in other articles, following summary style.

This extends to several sections that are no more than lists of results. These aren't good prose: the detail belongs in child articles. The main article should attempt to give an impression, to describe the narratives of the season rather than merely the details.

I'm sorry to fail this, because it's clearly the result of a lot of work, but it's a fair way off Good Article standard. I'll be happy to have another look at it if you're able to look at the issues here and bring it to a better standard.

Relentlessly (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)