Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1962 Tour de France/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [1].

1962 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Bald Boris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. The first FAC in late-2017 was closed due to the lack of attention, apart from Harrias. Twofingered Typist at GOCE gave it a copy-edit before the first FAC. Since the closure, the only significant edits have been recent suggestions from a GA review by Sportsfan77777. There was no opposition the first time round. Bald Boris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

For the Dutch archival images, the source links seem to give different licensing terms than the tags here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was adressed in the first review (I don't mean to imply that you should have read it): the licence at the source has changed, it used to be CC in 2016. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

~~For consistency, I suggest adding locations to Dauncey (2012) and Thompson (2008); you have locations on all your other sources.~~
Done, but ~~for~~ the Liverpool one ~~only, it~~ goes against WP:CS1#Work and publisher. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as I can see you've added the locations so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the "location" subsection it says "The |location= parameter should be omitted when it is implied by the name of the work, e.g. The New York Times.", which would applies Liverpool University Press and the University of Chicago Press (which I'd actually filled). I agree with you, but I like to follow the guidelines. Bald Boris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~with a loss of over ten minutes: "loss" seems an odd choice of words. How about "was third, over ten minutes behind Anquetil"?~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The long team names in the lead are ugly; I can see at least some of them are necessary, but if we can cut any that would help readability. The article on the 1989 tour doesn't bother with team names for some of the classification winners, so perhaps we could do that here? And "at which point Schroeder's team-mate Rik Van Looy, a major pre-race favourite, abandoned the race with an injury" would eliminate one, and the same trick could work for Geldermans, who is Anquetil's team-mate.
I've reduced the full team names throughout the article by using the shortened common name, and as you suggested removed them from parentheses. I've kept it for the last paragraph of the lead as I believe it's important and it's more of a list anyway. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not your problem, but I don't see why the subarticles on the stages are split in two. I think they could be combined, and could also include the contents of List of teams and cyclists in the 1962 Tour de France, under some heading such as "List of cyclists, teams, and results in the 1962 Tour de France]]. As a reader I'd prefer to go to a single article for that sort of detail. Not an issue for this FAC, just a comment.
It's split like this with a view to have a write-up for each stage like 2012 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10. Cannot be changed due to consistency across all Tours and other races. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation of the teams — where the members of each team's roster are introduced: looks like you're using spaced em dashes, which are forbidden by MOSDASH: it has to be spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. A pity, as I like spaced em dashes myself, but the MOS says no.
Should have been en dashes, good spot. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The team names are ugly again in the first "Pre-race favourites" paragraph; I don't think there's much you can do about it there, but you could eliminate them from the caption of the picture in that section as they're in the text.
See above. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~head team manager: just checking this is the correct form of words -- it implies there are non-head team managers, so I am wondering if it should be just "team manager".~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and undermining his commercial value. I'm not sure what this means. If these are professional riders, and being a domestique would reduce his ability to command high pay, then I don't think "commercial" is quite the right word as it implies sale rather than salary.
There's a few things to consider here. The 1961 Tour had national teams with no sponsorship. The manager of Poulidor's commercially sponsored international trade team, Magne, assumed Poulidor had little chance of make extra money through stage wins etc with Anquetil as leader of the French team (Magne was correct as Anquetil dominated the race). Magne wanted to maximize his rider's earnings, so advised him to ride other races instead, as he couldn't ride them all in peak form. See [2]. Maybe I could tidy that up an put it as a note? Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea -- what you just explained doesn't come through now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bald Boris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a large amount of time trialling: I think this should be "a large number of time trials" or "of time trial stages", but having just reviewed the 1989 Tour article I wonder if the number of time trials has gone up over time -- I think there were five in 1989, and here they're complaining about four. If so, a comment -- perhaps just in a footnoote -- might be worth it, if you can source something.
The total distance of time trialling was large (even with the short tough mountain time trial), not particularly the amount of time trial stages. It was large (not unusual) for the era. The late-80s and 90s was the 'era of the time trials', and was time trial heavy. Innovations had allowed for a faster position, which was made illegal in 2000.[3] I don't think a note about the history of time trials is necessary for this article because you've just compared 89 with '62'. So, "a large amount of time trialling distance"? Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about being specific: "and four time trials over a total of X km, which was unusually high"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the third paragraph then said "The race featured 49.5 km (31 mi) more time trialling than in the previous Tour, a total of 152.5 km (95 mi);...", I merged them and put "and four time trial events over a total of 152.5 km (95 mi), which was unusually high, 49.5 km (31 mi) more than in the previous Tour." Bald Boris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of that paragraph is a bit "He said... He said... He said...". How about something like this: 'Anquetil said that he did not fear the mountains and that although the time trials favoured him, he would not object if they were not included. Both Van Looy and Gaston Nencini complained about the number of time trials. Van Looy threatened not to ride, feeling it was too hard, and the time trials did not suit him, saying "Four times, you are crazy. Why not a normal route? I will not start this Tour. I do not intend to play for three weeks.' That also eliminates the one-word quote from Anquetil, a slight blemish.
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The final three stages took a northerly direction back to the north-east to finish at the Parc des Princes stadium in Paris. It's redundant to have both "northerly" and "to the north-east", but in any case isn't the route north-westerly at this point, judging from the map?
Done, with copy-edit. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~You have an "as of 2016"; can that be updated?~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~was broadcast live for the first time: TV or radio?~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Just a suggestion, but in the "Stage characteristics" table you have "Stage with mountain(s)"; I know this is probably standard wording, but I'd think you could safely make it "Stage with mountains".~~
It's just what we have for the old cycling races that don't have designated stage types. I don't think it looks great either, so I'll change it and then try to get a consensus at WT:CYCLING . Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the race overview section, again can we cut some team names in parentheses after riders' names? We've been told Darrigade's team in the body so it could be cut from the caption of the image there. I don't see any other obvious ones that could be cut, but please have a look.
See above. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~the pair distanced a breakaway of twenty riders: I don't know what "distanced" means here.~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Check for spelling consistency: I see "favourite" but "kilometer".~~
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breakaway rider Darrigade became the new general classification leader, his second stint in yellow: not quite a comma splice, but I think it could be improved. How about "for his second stint"? Or take away the comma and just make it "...for the second time in the race"?
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is it worth mentioning that Gaul won the 1958 Tour? And is it sufficiently unusual for a Tour stage to be re-used in a later edition that it's really worth mentioning here?~~
Removed, was trivial. Would be useful if Gaul was involved. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have three paragraphs in a row starting "The second classification...The third classification...The final classification..."; I think the numbering can be dispensed with. Perhaps "In the points classification, riders were awarded..." then some variation for the other two.
Done. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~You might mention that in other years the mountains classification leader did wear an identifying jersey.~~
A mountains classification leader jersey wasn't seen until 1975. It's not relevant to the 1962 Tour, so I won't include it in the body, but added a note if there's any confusion. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~with yellow casquettes (English: caps): I'd just make this "yellow caps", but if the term is worth keeping you don't need "English:" in the parentheses.~~
I'm not sure about this one, casquettes isn't really a common term these days. I know an article isn't a reason to use the word. If it's kept then you really need the translation, so I've removed it. Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good overall; these are all minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent points Mike (remember the 2012 FAC?). Bald Boris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I've just reviewed the 1989 Tour article too, and I'm impressed by the quality and consistency of the three I've looked at; looks like the cycling project has a good basis to work from. I hope we see more Tour articles nominated. Have you considered reviewing some FACs, by the way? Your prose is more than competent and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go with the FAC reviews. I know I should be returning the favours others have done for me, it's just not confidant about my expertise with prose. Bald Boris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be surprised what you can spot. Some excellent writers nominate at FAC, but there's always something to improve. Prose is just one of the criteria, anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are a couple of minor points left above, which don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdgeNavidad edit

I have edited this article in the past, but my last edit was in 2013, so I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1962. As far as I could see, everything is included in the Wikipedia article, except for some minor details on awards:

After every stage, there was an award for the best regional rider. This was a left-over of the system with national/regional teams: in previous years, this was given to the first rider of a regional team to finish. Because there were no regional teams, it was given to the first rider that finished, who was born in the region where the Tour was at that moment.
I not sure wether this should be included or not. Whilst researching in newspapers archives of the race, I have no recollection of seeing anything on this reported apart from the Prize amounts. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the award for most combative rider, there was an award for bad luck. It was given after every stage, and a special award was given at the end of the Tour to the most unlucky rider of the Tour (Rik Van Looy).
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~At the end of the Tour, the "Prix René Dunan" was given to the youngest rider that finished the Tour. This was Giorgo Zancanaro.~~
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~At the end of the Tour, the "Prix Alex Virot" was given to the most loyal rider (determined by a jury). This was Raymond Poulidor.~~
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the time to properly include this in the article. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this Edge. Significant contributors are allow to support as stated on WP:FAC, also, not to discredit you in anyway, but as you can see here the prose has been changed a fair bit. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All seems to be included correctly! No objections from me for making this a featured article. I won't !vote because it would feel like a conflict of interest, because I have previously stated my goal of having all Tour articles featured. I am aware that I am stricter than I need to be.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk edit

I looked at this back in 2017, and it looked good then. Looking at it again now, it's clear that further refinements have been made. I have a few small comments only:

In Pre-race favourites: "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins that awarded time bonuses could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." – The repetition of "bonuses" just makes this read a little oddly: could it be cut down to just "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." Does that still work?
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the Race overview: "Poulidor's injured hand was better by the stage ninteen..." – Remove "the", and correct the typo to nineteen.
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...he soloed to the finish at Aix-les-Bains with an advantage of over three minutes over his rivals," – Not keen on the repetition of "over". Could the first change to "more than"?
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing Lyon in stage twenty, ..." Should this be "finishing in Lyon"? If so, maybe rephrase completely as "In stage twenty, a 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing in Lyon, ..."
Done. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Baldini placed second with a time of 2 min 59 s ..." I assume this was how far behind Anquetil he was, not his actual time?
I've change it to "Baldini placed second, 2 min 59 s off the time set by Anquetil, and third.."? Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this is in very good shape, nice work. Harrias ^talk 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good thorough check there. I appreciate you returning. Bald Boris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A really good piece of work, well done. Harrias ^talk 11:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp edit

I wanted to review this because I’m a big Louis Malle fan, and it gave me an excuse to re-watch Vive le Tour after many years.

I’m on my second read-through and am finding very little to comment on. One point found so far:

Race overview: "Gaul and Bahamontes lost further time, finishing in the peloton over five minutes down." The wording "over five minutes down" does not seem very clear or usual to me. Is there a different way to say this? Moisejp (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very commonly used is cycling and other timed sports. "Behind" or "in arrears"; I've used all three evenly. Bald Boris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Planckaert had taken over the leadership of Flandria after the departure of Van Looy, with former race leader Schroeders pledging his support." Is "pledging one's support" some kind of team racing tactic? I couldn't grasp within the context what it referred to. Could its meaning possibly be clarified in the article, or paraphrased, or wiki-linked? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In professional road cycling, riders in a team are generally required to fully support one team leader. It's explained enough previous to that point that there are team leaders. That article is not meant to explain how cycling teams work, there's a link a cycling team early on. Support isn't exactly a cycling term, but it is commonly used. Bald Boris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classification leadership: "The overall team classification was calculated by counting the number of points across all the stages, with second and third lowest combined times determining placings." I got lost in the second half of this. What about first lowest combined times? I'm guessing the meaning is completely different from what my question is pointing towards, which means I did not understand the sentence at all. Could it be rephrased in the article?
It's not the easiest to explain to be honest, and can understand why they removed this system. One look at the table below and it's simple. With the previous sentence, it now reads: "The classification for the teams was calculated by adding together the times of the first three cyclists of a team on each stage; the team with the lowest combined time on a stage won one first place point. To determine placings in the overall team classification, second and third place points were also awarded." Bald Boris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Moisejp. Vive le Tour is a fantastic piece of film. Bald Boris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. OK, I'm satisfied with your changes and explanations. I really enjoyed this article, and it was quite cool to read about episodes I'd just seen in Vive le Tour, which as you say is an excellent short film. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

@BaldBoris: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Requested. Bald Boris 01:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I can do the source review. It may take me a couple of days to complete. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through the source review. One thing so far is I couldn't notice any consistency for when retrieval dates are used in the online references. Could you please make any additions/removals necessary to make these consistent? Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." Per Template:Cite news#URL. The source text in old newspapers or books cannot be changed, so a retrieval date is of no benefit to reader. Also, I've archived any URL that is able to be. Bald Boris 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's good then, and your inclusion of retrieval dates seems to consistently follow this standard. All of the references are well formatted, and each one appears to be for a reliable source. I did several mini-spotchecks, and they all check out. The sources look good to me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.