Talk:2015 Eneco Tour

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Zwerg Nase in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Eneco Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply


Glad to do this one as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  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:  
  • Pre-race favourites: You speak about how Wellens won the previous edition. Two things about that: 1) I think it would be better to write that he won the race with an attack on the penultimate stage rather than in the penultimate stage, since he didn't win it a day ahead of time. 2) The sources just write about that he is the defending champion, not about the nature of his victory, so you should provide a source from 2014 as well.
  • For future reference: I am seeing this in your articles quite often, that there are parantheses missing around the team name behind the rider's name. You should be more careful here and proofread.
  • You should take another look at the punctuation in the captions. There should be a full stop for every caption that includes a full sentence (like the photo for stage 2).
  • I don't quite see how ref 10 includes the info about the classifications and the jerseys. There is a link to the 2013 reglement here, maybe that helps.

Good job so far! I will put this on hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, Zwerg Nase. In order:
  • Done.
  • You're quite right. Fixed the one and I have rigged up some regex to help me fix future articles.
  • Done.
  • This is tricky. The information regarding the classifications is not published anywhere as far as I can tell. The only way I could source it was by looking at the official results, which clearly show what the regulations were, albeit only by induction. They don't cover the colours of the jerseys, I agree, and I've added a source that does. I'm not sure what else I can do for this information.
Let me know what you think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, so I added the 2013 reglement as a source as well. I believe that together, the sources should be sufficient to prove the point beyond doubt. I therefore give this a pass :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply