Talk:2016 Paris–Roubaix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (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:

I made some minor changes myself. What is left:

• You should put peloton in italics everywhere it appears.
• Race summary: "after coming back from being his crash" - something is not right here.
• Race summary: "he agreed to work fully for Stannard" - pure speculation, you should rephrase this.
• Post-race: Same problem here as with E3, try to find more ways to write "he said".

That's about it. Again, good work! On hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Stepped in and fixed all except point three. The ref does note that pretty clearly, actually, so I don't know how that'd be rephrased without making it incorrect. Wizardman 14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Wizardman! Promoted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)