Talk:2015 Philadelphia Cycling Classic
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Relentlessly in topic GA Review
 | 2015 Philadelphia Cycling Classic has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 2, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from 2015 Philadelphia Cycling Classic appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Philadelphia Cycling Classic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- "featured as the sixth round" – why "featured"? This seems a slightly odd word to use – I'd prefer "was".
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- No citation for the race's history as the Liberty Classic.
- Peloton should be linked in the lead.
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite a lot of repeat linking in the body.
- The "Entry" section is a bit confusing. If the top 20 teams were invited, why weren't they all there? (Presumably they declined their invitations?) "Of that list" is also confusing – "Of those teams" would be clearer.
- I agree with the first half, but I've not found any sources that specify exactly why they weren't there. With it being in the US, and most teams being based in Europe, I assume it was a cost-based decision, and they simply chose to skip it, but as I say, I don't really know. Changed the second point as suggested. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- "totalling a race length" – I suggest "giving a total race length" would be nicer English.
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- No references for the first five World Cup race winners.
- Added references in. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- No references for the current standings.
- Added reference in. Harrias talk 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This shouldn't take too much work! On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. My daughter has been ill, so I'm waaaaaay behind on anything "non-essential", so it might take me a bit longer than usual to get back to this. Harrias talk 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. I hope she's improving – take all the time you need. Relentlessly (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to pass this now. Sorry for the delay – I've been unwell myself lately. Relentlessly (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)