Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour de France/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2020 [1].

2019 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Bald Boris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent race, which has had a a fair few contributors. I helped get it to a respectable state for ITN last July and soon after readied it for GAR, which it passed last week. My other Tour FAs are 2012 (17 January 2017) and 1962 (4 March 2019). Bald Boris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

starting on 6 July in Brussels, Belgium, and concluding on 28 July with the Champs-Élysées stage in Paris. Inconsistent locations named (stages vs. cities, and the country given for Brussels but not Paris).
Changed to ", starting in Belgian capital of Brussels on 6 July, before moving throughout France and concluding on the Champs-Élysées in Paris on 28 July." Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
honour of the 50th anniversary of the first Tour de France win of Eddy Merckx. Mention that Merckx is Belgian for those unfamiliar.
Removed, as it's not leadworthy. Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the peloton (main group). The wikilink might be sufficient, but this might just be me.
I've used "peloton (main group)" ever since I saw a comment made by the now-retired Neelix on this FAC. Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
all of its eighteen UCI WorldTeams were entitled, and obliged, should be "18" per the MoS.
He then started the Tour de Suisse, but a crash on half-way through the nine-stage race saw him abandon and require recovery time. This put in doubt his ability to perform at the Tour. This could be combined; the latter sentence should at least be rewritten.
Rewritten. If you care to take a look at the first two paragraphs, I've now reassessed the leading favourites as it caused quite a stir with users during the race and passed me by. Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire route was unveiled on 25 October 2018, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history." → The entire route, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history", was unveiled on 25 October 2018. Or something to that effect; I'm not a fan of deliberately introducing more commas, but I think the relative clause should be closer to the antecedent.
Four main individual classifications were contested in the 2019 Tour de France, as well as a team competition. → Four main individual classifications and a team competition were contested in the race.
also holding the lead of the team and nation ranking respectively.[109][110] [108] There's an unwarranted space before the last ref, which is also out of order.
A mistake I made yesterday. Removed. Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good and I'm inclined to support. I intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with replies. Thank you John. Bald Boris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have some more concerns.
- Despite this, the decision of team leadership between him, Thomas and Egan Bernal was not yet resolved. I assume this means that who would be the race winner within the team was still uncertain, but this can be rewritten to be a lot clearer. Also, It's best practice to cite the sentences about Froome.
  The riders compete individually, apart from the team classification, but at all costs sacrifice winning for their team's leader, but when there's two or more equal leaders it becomes messy. I believe it's something quite unique to cycling and most don't initially understand. It's come up more than once in my past reviews. I've made it a bit clearer. ~~Although I agree, both cites do cover all that precede them.~~ Bald Boris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've now separated the cites. Bald Boris 05:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Tour, he was to share the leadership with Thomas according to the team,[27] although some in the media expected and internal battle between the two. This somewhat contradicts the assumption made above if I'm not mistaken. Please clarify what exactly team leadership is in this context. Also, I believe it should be "an internal battle."
  Hopefully it makes sense now. Bald Boris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "collarbone" is common enough to not be linked.
- Other riders expected to place high in the general classification, or in some cases being dark horses, were Separate the expected-high in classification riders and the dark horses into different sentences.
  Remove dark horses. I didn't write it and wouldn't have. Bald Boris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done the above. I've also just made a few final improvements to the "Classification leadership and minor prizes" section (sorry). Bald Boris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, enough for me to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and good luck in the Cup! Bald Boris 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I go; revert anything you don't like.

Despite the latter, the decision of who would become the designated team leader for the Tour between Froome, Thomas and Egan Bernal was not yet resolved. The source given doesn't mention Bernal as a candidate for team leader, and given that we've just mentioned Froome's absence it's hard to see what was hard about the decision. I assume the source predates Froome's crash but the article doesn't make it clear we're going back in time here.
Changed to "Prior to Froome's withdrawal". Bald Boris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That fixes the timing issue, but the new citation doesn't say the leadership is unresolved -- on the contrary, it explicitly says Froome will lead the team with Thomas. I'm not clear whether they mean Froome will lead, and Thomas will be on the team with him, or Froome and Thomas will be co-leaders, but either way there doesn't appear to be anything unresolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with two sources from four days earlier, one of which quotes the team manager Dave Brailsford. I think in the last source they presumed, like most, that Froome would lead. Team leadership can be messy in cycling, especially in the Tour. Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not seeing this. The closest I see to a supporting source is the comment in the Cycling News piece about the Ineos leadership looking murky, but is it really fair to report that in the article as "unresolved" given the quote I referred to above? I think the import of the sources I've seen (and I'm sure I haven't digested them as well as you have) is that Ineos had an embarrassment of riches, and leadership could well have been up in the air, but Froome was the leader. The fact that Brailsford even has to answer questions about it is of course relevant, but that piece doesn't say Bernal is a possible leader. I just can't see support for "unresolved". And Brailsford even explicitly refers to Bernal as a domestique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing says "Froome was [would be] the leader"? Perhaps "unresolved" wasn't the best choice of words. 'Leader' in cycling can simply mean the guy, at any time, with the best chance of winning that they give full support to. It's a valid point as Froome has been the team's unequivocal pre-race Tour leader since 2013. With three of the best riders they would never have said who would go in as leader. I removed the Brailsford source as he was understandably coy. Bernal is now mentioned as a potential 'leader' in all sources. Bald Boris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So "leader" doesn't mean anything parallel to a captain of a team in football or cricket? I can't find the quote I mentioned above, so perhaps I was misremembering it. And I see you took out "designated", but one of the sources talks about Froome wanting to be the "boss" at the Tour, so it does look like this is a position nominated by Ineos, not just a general term for a contender? I do see "Egan Bernal's change of programme makes the Ineos leadership situation even more murky" so it's clear now that the sources are using the term the same way you are, so I'm going to strike this, but I am still confused about what "leader" really means in a team. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, rider titles aren't officially given apart from leaders getting the first number of a team in startlists. The leader is usually the best all-rounder who 'leads' a team's challenge of winning a race, which in multi-stage races is considered the individually competed general classification. Most teams will have one rider who is clearly the best and which the team is built around. Some teams will have a few top riders, causing a leadership 'battle'. A top rider capable of competing for the high places in a general classification would not want to be a domestique (servant) for a leader. Team Ineos would have had three of the very top riders in one race if not for Froome's withdrawal. Road captains are experienced riders that make the tactical decisions on the road, together with the managers following in cars behind. I hope gives you a better idea. Perhaps an entry here Glossary of cycling#team leader would be a good idea. Bald Boris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need the inline explanation of the Giro d'Italia in the sentence about Dumoulin? The fact that he'd won it in 2017 is a bit more relevant in that it makes it clear he was a favourite, but I don't think it's necessary -- the reader can click through to Dumoulin's article if they want to see why he's considered a contender.
Is it not a fair assumption that the average reader has no idea that the Giro is a Grand Tour, and with that is stood above other races. I just see it as aiding, but if you feel them unnecessary I'll drop both. Bald Boris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First signs of improving form came with a third-place overall finish at the Tour de Romandie in early May: a nitpick, but the source doesn't say third-place, it just says podium finish, so we need another source. I also think this is a slight SYNTH; the source just says it's his only decent result, but "first signs of improving form" imply a trajectory which the source doesn't talk about. I think this should be more along the lines of the source "the only good result" or something like that.
Changed to "His only result of note before the Tour". I did query "First signs of improving" as I was doing the double checking. Bald Boris 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More this evening or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~What does "ASO" stand for?~~
Amaury Sport Organisation, stated before in 2019 Tour de France#Teams. Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the table of stages the strikeout stopped me dead in my tracks. I see why you did it, and the footnote is right there explaining it, but it would be good to come up with a way to at least hint at what happened without the footnote. How about "89 km (55 mi) (originally 126.5 km (79 mi))" with the footnote?
To me a strike anywhere clearly means cancelled or similar, but I understand how it could confuse. I think "originally" is too much for a table cell. Maybe just move the original distance into the note? Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a concise way to tell the reader that there were two distances involved. What if we put the original distances in parentheses, without strikeouts, and add a sentence just above the table saying explaining that the parenthetical distances refer to the original plan? Or use "orig." instead of "originally"? I just don't like leaving something so confusing to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but data tables such as this should only include expected values. Adding any text would disjoint the column and then the table. The form locations and distances are almost irrelevant to the table, as it's stating the details of the completed stages, not what might have happened. So, the the striked can go as I said. I still think a note is suffiecent, either just below the table or as is. I could take it to WT:CYCLING? Bald Boris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be the shorter distances in the table, with a footnote explaining the change? That would work. I agree that anything more would make the table ugly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the struck things into the notes, which have to be in to "Notes" section at the because the stage 19 note is also used in the "Classification leadership and minor prizes" section. Bald Boris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the aforementioned stage, Alaphilippe took the victory: I can't tell which stage this is.
The final words of the previous sentence: "the following day's time trial". Is that not better than repeating "time trial" again? Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about combining those two paragraphs, and making it "the following day's time trial, which was won instead by Alaphilippe..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following chasers Bernal and Buchmann and the last of the few breakaway riders, the overall contenders, led by Thomas, came in 1' 22" behind Yates. Syntax here seems muddled -- the breakaway riders are the overall contenders? Including the chasers?
Rephrased. It was confusing because before it there's ", progressing to fourth overall.", which is stated because earlier it mentions he was sitting down in 11th. But the next paragraph does mention him in fourth? Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new phrasing works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bernal and Buchmann following Pinot closely in fifth and sixth respectively: too difficult to parse -- took me a second to realize that Pinot was fourth and you just skipped saying so. How about just "with Pinot, Bernal and Buchmann not far behind"? The reader can figure out the positions easily.
Very muddled ha. Changed to "followed closely by Pinot, Bernal and Buchmann respectively". Your proposal doesn't make it explicit that they were next in 4th, 5th and 6th. Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leading by over a minute and a half at the summit, which he held on the descent to the finish: needs rephrasing -- he didn't hold onto the summit. How about "and by the summit had built a lead of over a minute and a half, which..."?
Done. I need to stop myself from doing this. Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue for the FAC, but I suspect that the young riders were those born "on or after 1 January 1994", not just after. The article matches the source though, so we'll have to wait till a young rider born on New Year's Day wins the classification to find out for sure.
I agree. It's not what I used to put, but it is technically correct. Bald Boris 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. A clean article; once these minor issues are fixed I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I unwatched this page somehow. Bald Boris 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only issue left is the struck numbers in the table; I think moving them to a footnote is the right answer, having given up on finding a better way to do it, but that's not going to hold up my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work and the support. Bald Boris 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Repeating myself from the concurrent TdF nom but again this has been open two months and seems to have stalled despite its presence in the urgents list for over two weeks, so again time to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 10:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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