Talk:2015 Paris–Nice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2015 (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:

Little left to do here, I made some minor fixes myself, as you can see. What you should still adress:

• There is one dead link, the UCI regulations. You should find a substitute here.
• I added a template at Stage 3.
• Stage 1, you write about the intermediate sprint, but the source does not provide those informations. As this constitutes original research, you need to take care of that. It might be helpful to look into the cyclingnews live tickers. I added one myself in the prologue section, where there was also unreferenced information.
• There are a lot of repeat links here. It seems that in cycling articles it is costumary to have the teamname template there every time and so forth, but you should still go through the article and remove unnecessary repeat links.

I put the review on hold for the usual seven days. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and edits. In order:

• Fixed the link with Internet Archive.
• The fact you added {{cn}} to on Stage 3 was cited, but not obviously. I've duplicated the citation to make it clear.
• Yes, you're right; some of the information was in the citation, but not all of it. The CyclingNews race report contains the rest, so I've reused that.
• Looking at repeat links now...

Relentlessly (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I think I've removed all the duplicate links. The team names are present once for each rider in each section; perhaps this is excessive, but it does seem to be the style in most cycling articles. Thanks again for your review – I think I've dealt with all your points. Relentlessly (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly Alright, I'll take a closer look at it later tonight :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well done, especially on the new images and the removal of repeat links, I am sure that was quite a drag. It's now a pass, congratulations :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. It wasn't too bad a task, actually: with Visual Editor in one window and the duplicate links tool in another it took less than ten minutes! Relentlessly (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)