Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France edit

List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I enjoy cycling and follow the Tour de France every year. I think it meets the criteria. This page is based on the FLC List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France. Please note that I currently have another FLC open but it has four supports and no unanswered comments so I think it is ok to open this one. If any of the FLC delegates disagree feel free to close. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support I have worked on getting 2012, 2013 and 2015 (review) to FL and had previously brought the list up to standard. It must be noted that Yellow has only contributed to the prose, so full credit must be given to HelSimki and Ytfc23 for their very time consuming edits. BaldBoris 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BaldBoris for your support. An yes i whole-heartily agree that credit must go to HelSimki and Ytfc23 as well as Tomrtn and yourself for your great work. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I should have been clear that my support was for the layout and tables, which have had no issues. Prose now looks in shape now and I fully support it. BaldBoris 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cites needs filling properly, which I thought I had done previously? I can do it for you, as I'm a stickler with them. BaldBoris 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Sorry, is there something I need to do here? Or is it fixed. I happy to do it if needed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now worries, I sorted it. BaldBoris 23:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Oppose
    • The first two paragraphs of the lead should be combined. The first paragraph, right now, is too thin, the second is twice as large and the third is twice as large as the second. Combined
    • What does "UCI" mean? Explained
    • into the race by the race organisers - using the word "race" twice is redundant. Also, there's only one organiser listed, why does it say "organisers"? Fixed
    • The word "peloton" is linked on the 2nd instance; should be the 1st. Fixed
    • consisted of 198 riders.[4] These came from 32 countries - isn't it better to say "consisted of 198 riders from 32 countries"? Done
    • 174 riders completed - starting a sentence with numbers should be avoided Reworded
    • 174 riders completed the race and 22 withdrew, that's 196. It was stated earlier that 198 started, so what happened to the remaining two riders? It was a typo; fixed
    • Chris Froome (Team Sky) - Isn't it better to say "Chris Froome from Team Sky"? This applies to all riders mentioned in the lead See comment below
    • How many stages are there in total? The lead doesn't state it Mentioned
    • Frenchman Romain Bardet ( - this bracket never closes Fixed
    • Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) and Sagan also won - Shouldn't it be "Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) who also won"? Reworded

This is just from the lead. I'll list more issues later.--Cheetah (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Thanks for the review. I have fixed all your issues except one. That is your point about the mentioning of the teams. I followed a consistent style found used in 5 FLs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), at least 1 FA (1) and multiple GAs (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). As quite a few cyclists have there team after them in brackets in this particular list, I think it would become repetitive to use "from Team X". - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued..

    • The points classification was won for the fifth consecutive year by Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) who also won the combativity award. - I don't like that "won" is used twice in one sentence. Can you reword this? Reworded
    • Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the race organisers - should be organiser Fixed
    • These are great news today - where's the "!"? Added
    • the third consecutive Tour de France that Bora–Argon 18 had been - later in that paragraph, it is mentioned that the same happened to the Fortuneo–Vital Concept team. I think it should be "the third consecutive Tour de France that Bora–Argon 18 and Fortuneo–Vital Concept had been" Merged
    • Can you mention what order the teams are listed in the "Teams' section as well as the "by team" subsection? was there a draw placed? I can only guess Explained
    • Where did you get the time from? I wanted to check if it's sourced, I couldn't. Sourced
    • The winner's time should be marked differently because whatever the "legend" says does not apply to it Added to legend
    • It has to mention why it's missing every tenth number from the "By starting number" table. Explained
    • The 198 riders that will compete - "The 198 riders that competed" Reworded

--Cheetah (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Thanks. All done. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only issue remaining that I have is I can't find out how the starting numbers are assigned. If you add that info as well, That'd be over the top.--Cheetah (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crzycheetah: Thanks for your support and thorough review. About the numbers, they are assigned based on the result of the team leader in the previous Tour. Should I add a note about it? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a footnote with a reference would be beneficial.--Cheetah (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crzycheetah: Done. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say that a couple of the suggestions by Crzycheetah are unnecessary. None of these are used in the other FL cycling lists.
    • The entry in the legend for explaining why Froome's time is marked differently: The "Time" column is explained as the difference to the winner of the GC, which is explained as being denoted by a yellow jersey icon.
    • The explanation for why there's no tenth number: I mean, really, is this needed?
    • The note in the "By team" section is duplicate of the one in "Teams": Both should be a sentence in the lead.

Those were just his comments, not what you have to change. Other ones were good mind you. BaldBoris 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with your points. The double dagger can be removed and the note about the time added to the yellow jersey in the legend table. Something like "Denotes the winner of the general classification with his full race time listed". As for your second point, to be honest, even after adding that note, I don't understand why there is no tenth number. Why are the cyclists not assigned with the tenth number? is it bad luck? Taboo? I have no idea. And the third point, yes, I agree, the notes can be removed and the order explanation be stated in the lead. --Cheetah (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crzycheetah: Thanks for the reply. Sorry, maybe its because I'm a keen sports fan, but if the team has only nine riders you couldn't have the next teams numbers starting at ten. It basically just makes it easy to mark who's in what team, also, the rider ending with one can easily be marked as the team leader. Imagine the mess without this. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crzycheetah and BaldBoris: I have made some changes here. I hope they are a decent compromise. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise there. The style of the note may need looking at though. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions BaldBoris? Should it be more informative? Does the wording need improvement? I'm a bit stuck for ideas at the moment. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very nice list. I have not find any issues with it. The sources and external links are also all good, and it has no dead links. Currently, this list meets the FL criteria. AffeL (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support AffeL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk)
Comments from Vensatry - A good list with just a few nitpicks:
  • Paris and Tinkoff linked twice in the lead.
  • "The points classification was won for the fifth consecutive year by Peter Sagan (Tinkoff). He also won the combativity award." This would read better if we join these two sentences.
    Done
  • "Denotes the winner of the general classification[11] The winner, Chris Froome, has his full race time listed." Period missing before ref.
    Added
  • Ref #5 is missing publisher.
    Added
  • Ref #7 is missing author.
    Added
  • In the refs. link the first instance of Amaury Sport Organisation.
    Done
@Vensatry: Can you show where it says to only link the first instance of the work or publisher param? It doesn't make any sense anyway because you click the ref note and it goes to the anchor, you don't go through them from the start. If you can't then you're imposing your preference, which you shouldn't be doing. BaldBoris 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb is either link all (some might feel that it's overlinking) or just link the first occurrence alone; randomly linking them is a bad idea. —Vensatry (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't then? There isn't a general rule of thumb, that's just your preference. Overlinking only applies to the prose, not infoboxes, tables or references... (WP:OLINK). In this it's because the reader goes straight to the numbered footnote, as I explained. Linking the first one makes no difference to them. I just said to Yellow that the cites need sorting out, so I wasn't planning on leaving them "randomly" linked. BaldBoris 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with italicising website names (publishers) in refs.
    Not done. It is standard that refs using {{Cite news}} have publishers in italics while refs using {{Cite web}} don't.
    Not really, you can always use the 'Publisher' parameter (in case you don't want to italicise the names). Most websites are self-publishing ones, so the 'Publisher' parameter is redundant. Italicising website names are perfectly admissible, but you should be consistent. —Vensatry (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vensatry: Understood, fixed I think. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source.
    Replaced both

—Vensatry (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for the review, I have replied to them all above. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_teams_and_cyclists_in_the_2016_Tour_de_France/archive1&oldid=1138487745"