Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1962 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 [1].

1962 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Bald Boris 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. I choose to work on this as it was the first time a British rider wore the race's yellow jersey, Tom Simpson, an article I helped get featured status. I believe I've done as much research as possible for this. I have already brought another Tour up to FA, 2012, and GAs from 2011 to 2016. It has had a good copy-edit from Twofingered Typist. Note: after nearly two months at GAN, I jumped here as it was my ultimate goal. Bald Boris 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of the early stuff in this article between 2008 and 2013, and to the best of my knowledge no critical information is missing in the article, so I support this nomination in the role as previous contributor, which means that I will try to watch this page from time to time and assist BaldBoris to improve the article if the review says that is necessary. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Tour_de_France_1962,_Stage_1,_before_the_start_(1).jpg: source link asserts a different licensing status than the tag here. Same with File:Jacques_Anquetil,_Tour_de_France_1962_(1).jpg, File:Tour_de_France_1962_Spa-Herentals.jpg, File:Piet_van_Est,_Rik_van_Looy_and_Huub_Zilverberg,_Tour_de_France_1962_(cropped).jpg, File:Rudi_Altig_(1962).jpg, File:Federico_Bahamontes_(1962).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why, but the licences have been changed at source from CC by to public domain. Captures of File:Rudi Altig (1962).jpg: 15 Sepember 2016 and current. I'm not 100% on this, but according to [2] CC licenses are not revocable, so those licences don't think they need changing. Bald Boris 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's very odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

You have row scopes in most of the tables, but they are missing from those in the Final standings section.
I take it you mean the rider/team should be the scope, like 2015 Vuelta a España#Final standings? That is the only race article I know of using that. I'm not sure it's needed for the results. Nothing conclusive at MOS:TABLE or MOS:DTT. Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DTT describes the use of row scopes in the Overview of basics section, which it lists as "Priority: high". In my opinion, that makes it pretty conclusive to make the table/article MOS compliant. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainty isn't a rule followed in most feature lists. Of the many featured Olympic medal tables, only three use row headers (2000 Summer Paralympics medal table, 2008 Summer Paralympics medal table and 1924 Winter Olympics medal table), and they aren't consistent. I do agree if there is a clear row to use, which I'm not sure with standings/rankings. Would it be by rank or by rider? Bald Boris 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but only two of those many tables have been promoted to FL since 2012. If you look at recent FL promotions, relatively few are promoted without row scopes; the MOS and how we interpret it evolves to improve the articles we produce. I also agree that in some cases row scopes aren't appropriate, but in this case I would suggest that the rank is appropriate, as the list is clearly defined by that (both the order and inclusion criteria are by rank.) Harrias ^talk 18:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to make that infobox a bit narrower? It pretty much takes over my relatively narrow laptop screen.
Nothing much I can do about that as the teams were allowed up to three sponsors, making their names very long. Not ideal, but anything else would look messy. Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I thought that would be the case. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly some more explanation of what a "trade team" is would be useful.
"For the first time, the French cyclists were outnumbered; there were 52 Italian cyclists and 50 French cyclists, the largest numbers from a nation, including Belgium with 28." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, especially the odd addition of Belgium at the end.
"The total number of riders who finished the race was 94, a record." What sort of record? A record high, a record low, a record high to that point, an all-time record high? Clarify.
"Double reigning world road race champion Van Looy" Does this mean he won the world road race twice, or won two different world road races?
Is "the Nancy, in north-eastern France" right? It sounds odd to me to put "the" in front of Nancy, which I only know as a city, rather than a feature.
In most of the final paragraph of Route and stages you refer to stage by their digits, but occasionally you use words; be consistent. Given the existence of 2a and 2b etc, it is probably better to use digits throughout.
Do you mean throughout the whole section? Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, just that paragraph, which it looks like you've done. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the fastest recorded stage above a distance of 200 km (124 mi)." Again, more clarification; the fastest that year, the fastest to that point, or the fastest ever?
"In first part of the eighth stage, another large group escaped, which in the final kilometers had merged with another chasing breakaway.." Missing "the" at the start, and then close repetition of "another".
"..won tenth stage's bunch sprint." Another missing "the".
Is there any link for categorised climbs?
No. It's covered in Mountains classification in the Tour de France though. Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, link to that on the first use of "categorised climb", even though you've already linked to Mountains classification in the Tour de France. Someone who didn't want/need to click on the Mountains classification link might be interested in finding out more about categorised climbs. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article only has info on the "Current situation", so wouldn't aid the reader. Also, it dosen't say a repeated link is OK in prose at MOS:DUPLINK. Bald Boris 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"nineteenth stage followed the same route as the 21st stage" Comparable numbers should be in the same format; either 19th and 21st or nineteenth and twenty-first.
"Poulidor was placed ninth in the general classification, ten minutes in arrears, so he would have likely been seen as a threat." Is this missing a "not"?
"pre-race favourite Hans Junkermann" This seems a slight exaggeration, as it implies he was the outright favourite, rather than just one of the "other riders considered contenders" as listed in Pre-race favourites section.
The Doping section talks about "bad fish" but never specifically mentions doping. Unless there are sources the specifically talk about doping, and we mention it explicitly this is a BLP issue given some of these riders are still alive, and needs to be removed, or at least toned down.
I've re-written parts and added some. Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a really good piece of work, with just picky comments from me above. Harrias ^talk 10:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out most of your comments and replied to the others. Thanks for a great review Harrias. Bald Boris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for nearly two months with no support. Therefore, I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. It may be worth opening a PR before renominating in an attempt to attract more attention next time. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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