;Comments:
- I would have said the semicolon on the first line should be a comma.
- There isn't a semi-colon on the first line assuming your talking about the lead? NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I think of it, using lines is not accurate since it will depend on screen width and size rendering. The place I am thinking of is "three "Grand Tours"; along ". Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done NapHit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the 1941 edition the only which also took place in countries "with close proximity"? Particularly if this is a recurring phenomena, which countries are these?
- Someone had changed the sentence from what it originally meant, rectified that issue. Regarding the countries, the only one I can find a reference for is the Netherlands which is not close enough to Spain to warrant being put in the lead. See TRM's comment above. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the lead is without references.
- Added a ref NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the history section there are some very short sentences, such as "He won his second Vuelta in 1983." that perhaps could be merged with adjacent sentences.
- I'm not sure the prose would read better if I did this, as I would end up saying "so and so won this year, the following year" over and over again which is not good practice, so I think its fine. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The history section seems completely referenced except for the last statement of the third paragraph.
- done NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems odd to have rows for years without a competition.
- Each to their own I suppose, I personally think it would be odd not to include them, as it conveys to the reader clearly what years the event did not take place. It would look odd in my opinion if the table jumped from 1951 to 1955 without explanation. NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking
years countries in the table and elsewhere is overlinking.
- The countries are only linked in the table as far as I'm aware apart from Spain obviously. I was of the impression that sortable tables were allowed to overlink and this has not come up in any candidacy for a while. Unless policy has changed I'm not sure if there is an issue. NapHit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between overlinking and repeatlinking. Tables have an exception from the MOS guideline of only the first occurrence being linked, i.e. tables can have the same link repeated in multiple rows. However, tables do not have an exception from the guideline of overlinking, which involves linking to terms deemed to general to serve a purpose, for which countries are specifically mentioned. More about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the MOS page you brought this quote from the repeatlink section would seem to contradict what your stating; "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As you say, the table can repeat links from other places in the article, and can repeat links within itself. Nowhere does it say that tables are allowed to have links which normally should not be linked. The repeatlink section does not give any exceptions from the overlink section. Arsenikk (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if this is the case then nearly every list promoted would fail this requirement as most lists link countries in the table. I would be interested to see what other reviewers think because I don't think this is an issue at all. I have been at FLC for three years now and this is the first time this has come up so I'm not sure if your interpreting the MOS wrong or everyone else is or they are not clear enough, but in my eyes there is not a problem. NapHit (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore the above, I've fixed this now. The countries now link to the relevant national cycling federation article for that country except for Kazakhstan which does not have an article. Hope that meets your demands. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "stage wins" column sorts oddly for me. In an increasing sort, it sorts zero, emdashes, larger numbers.
- fixed this NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, when sorting by "cyclist", 'not contested' is sorted in the middle under NOT..
- I tried to fix this, unfortunately as there is a cyclist whose last name starts with Z I can't get the not contested bit to sort after him so I'm afraid there is not much I can do unless there is a way around that issue. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my last edit solved this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it did thanks Edge NapHit (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What order is used to display the multiple winners with the same number of wins? It does not seem to be sorter either by year or surname.
- It's sorted by the year of their first win NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Fuente is in the wrong order. Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image licenses look good.
Arsenikk (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|