Talk:2015 Tour de Suisse

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (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:

Having already reviewed 2015 Milan – San Remo and 2015 Tour of Oman for GA this year, I am well aware of the great work that is being done by several editors on Wikipedia to make it a clean sweep of excellent cycling race reports, not just covering the ProTour, but also smaller races. This article is no different in providing comprehensive information, but there are a lot of referencing issues to be addressed before I can pass the article for Good Article status.

• General: As far as I can see, all your captions are complete sentences and should therefore end with a full stop as per WP:CAPFRAG.

 Done Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• General: Some of the captions have words or phrases in them that are objectionable statements, like "strong attack", "too strong" and so forth. Try to find more neutral terms. Also, phrases like "put his hands on the leader's jersey" sound quite journalistic, which should also be avoided.

 Done I changed everything to a more encyclopedic approach. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Images look a lot better now, changing this to a pass. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Every caption should state where and when the picture was taken, if it was not at the day of the stage.

 Done Although, I don't believe there is a need to state where it was taken. BaldBoris 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Section "Teams": The claim that a UCI World Tour race needs to invite all ProTour Teams should be sourced. I bet there is a page on the UCI website giving the regulations for this. Also, there is no source telling us that every team was allowed to field eight riders.

 Done I went through dozens of pages of UCI regulations to finally find the right article (UCI Cycling Regulations: Part 2: Road Races page 110 article 2.15.127). I really think there is no way to find a ref about the maximum riders (not that I didn't try) so I put the startlist instead. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The startlist shows the numbers if you can count. BaldBoris 22:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the startlist works, this is easily deductable information. Good job on the regulations. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Section "Preview": The source you give for the first sentence does not back up your statements about team directors monitoring their cyclists.

 Done Sounds like common sense but I could not find a ref about that, so I got it out. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Section "Preview": I read in most of the sources that most major Tour favorites rode the Dauphiné instead. You could mention that in this article.

 Done Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Section "Pre-race favorites": The statement about Cancellara and Schleck competing lacks a source. You could use the startlist you give in the next reference.~

 Done Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This section is also a lot better now! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking about that reference: Why do you give a startlist as the source for who the favorite is? The performance chart is not really significant in that respect. Then again, some favorites named in this article are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, like Kwiatkowsky.

 Done BaldBoris 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Sagan source only states that he has won the Tour of California, not that he is a GC candidate for Switzerland. There are more sourcing issues here: The statement regarding Cancellara looking for stage wins is missing. That also calls your image caption into question. And again, the only viable source for favorites for stage wins like Sergio Henao, who is missing from the article here. Other stage win favorites are listed without a reference given. So far, this entire section seems to have a lot of original research and while the information might be true, you need to provide sources. You might want to look into this as a source.

 Done BaldBoris 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• The stage reports seem to have the same problem: A lot of what you write I cannot find in the sources. Example: Stage 1 you write "Silvan Dillier crashed for apparently no other reason than slipping on his handlebars" without citing a source. Also you write "[the] very short prologue contained a lot of cornering for its small length". While that might be true from what I can see on the map, you will need to find a source of someone saying that who is not you. The same problem seems to plague the other stages as well. I will refrain from pointing out every instance. Please go through the reports again and see that every statement in them is backed up by a source.
• Stage 9: I find the preview section weird when it comes to layout. Once again, there are referencing issues. You name a good time trial performance by Pozzovivo, but no bad one. Maybe you can find a source describing his strengths and weaknesses? Even basic things like "the riders started in reverse order of the general classification" should have a citation on it.

 Done Refs for both asked items posted. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Classification leadership: This section is completely lacking any references.

 Done Tour de Suisse were too cheap to write it on their website, so I had to take references from Cyclingnews for the points on offer. As for the combativity award and the team award, I had no choice but to take a 'Tour de France for Dummies' style article as once again, the Tour de Suisse site is more preoccupied plugging their sponsors than stating their rules. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I give the nominator the usual seven days to address the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Baldboris and I have done a bunch of work right off the bat. I've referenced the Classification leadership. I think all the pictures are OK now concerning the points you mentioned. I also took care of the favorites section and the preview section with BaldBoris. I also took care of finding a ref for Pozzovivo's bad time trialing. The opening prologue issue has been taken care of by adding another ref and modifying the text. I scratched the way Dilier fell because there is no way to see what caused the crash nor text about it, I even tweeted him out of curiosity to know but he hasn't answered. I wouldn't have referenced a tweet anyway. It is absolutely impossible to find a reference about the limit of 8 riders even in French, would the startlist do? Also, a good way of seeing what has been done is look at the history and read the edit summaries, but I somehow think you know that. I also mentioned some general classification contenders for the Tour chose the Dauphiné instead. For the preview in the last stage, I don't really get what is wrong: I wanted to recapitulate and situate the reader about who had chances with a ref of course. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments First off good work on building this article. Glad to see some other people caring about the cycling races!

• There seems to be a lot of prose that doesn't get referenced until the paragraph ends, with several sentences that lack citations where they should be since their facts could be challenged. It would be nice to have a reference after each sentence so as to make fact checking far easier for the future and just when reading over things yourself.
• Instead of putting the link to the stage results as ProCyclingstats, make it an actual source like for all the other articles and not just a link to another site.

I know you just followed another GA race Matt, but I have to agree with Disc in that I'm not a fan of those new tables, or the teams one as well. I think the source link should use the cite web template. BaldBoris 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say look over the the text again for more words that aren't encyclopedia worthy

I gleaned over most of the text but mainly read in depth for stage 9 for some reason, why I dunno.

Preview In Stage 9 section

 Done*"The final general classification of the race would definitely be decided on this stage, and a majority of the observers believed that Pinot would lose his lead since he is not a great time trialist, meaning he is not at his best when fighting against the wind on rolling terrain..." - Sounds like OR, but I looked at the CyclingQuote source - which I'm not sure qualifies as an RS, but whatever - and they kind of mention his inability to time trial

 Done*" Fourth-placed Domenico Pozzovivo (Ag2r-La Mondiale) was an enigma, as he accomplished both good[71] and bad[72] performances in time trials in the past." I would scrap this sentence if you can't find a source that talks about his polar performances in time trials, because this comes off as OR to me.

CyclingQuotes.com isn't a quality reliable source IMO. All articles written by the same author? Seems like a fancy blog to me. Although it appears to have 20k likes on FB. BaldBoris 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* CQ described the stages and the average gradients of the KOMs while no other sites did it, including the Tour de Suisse site. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your frustration at this point completely, since I have the same problem at one of my articles under review right now. It is really frustrating when you can find information you want to add only in sources that some find unreliable. Is there any debate you can find in the Cycling Wikiproject over which websites are considered reliable and which are not? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done*You cite only two sources at the end of the paragraph, so I don't think that a "majority" of observers would be the best term to use unless you can supplant that statement with more references.

 Done*Where in the sources that you cite at the end of the paragraph does it talk about him "not being his best when fighting the wind on the rolling terrain"? Comes off as original research.

 Done*"Some riders, like Robert Gesink (LottoNL-Jumbo) started the competition with an energy gel tucked between them and their skin suit for on-the-fly replenishment." - Don't know why this merits mentioning unless you can prove it had an impact...

 Done*"Dumuolin smashed Malori's.." - Not quite encyclopedic vocabulary.

Good work again! Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw you un-did my edit removing the bit about Gilbert withdrawing from the race, please do explain why a rider who had no impact in the race beforehand. Unless he was a main factor in the GC or won a stage or two beforehand I don't really see how it requires mentioning. Yes he is a notable rider, but what did he do in the race that was notable? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 03:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow I don't know how Relentlessly did it on the first try, I never thought this would be such a huge headache. I am totally discouraged, and everybody that knows me a bit on this wiki knows I'm normally a joyful guy. I don't get the ProCyclingStats comment. Relentlessly did it that way and his articles were instant GA, so that didn't seem to be an issue. For the gels, I thought it was an interesting fact. For Pozzovivo too, I think I proved he has mixed performances in TTs. About Gilbert, I think riding with a fracture and discovering it during the race is not banal and should be said, especially since we have a reference. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 03:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Matt, I am sorry to hear that you feel discouraged, that is certainly noone's intent. I do have to agree with DiscWheel though, non-encyclopedic vocabulary is still a big issue in this article. Expressions like "very hairy corner" should not be used in a Wikipedia article. If you write in a more factual way, it is also easier to reference it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah dude, in no way am I trying to give you a headache and discourage you. I felt the same way when I took my first article to GA and my writing got shredded to bits and then again when I took the same article to FA, it just comes with the territory. Wikipedia wants the articles that reach GA level to be GA level, a true encyclopedic article. As for Relentlessly's articles, I haven't looked at any of them, I just happened to see this one was at GAR and came to take a gander.

In reference to pozzovivo comment, to say that you proved his mixed performances comes off even more as original research; the source should state that he is for it to be included in the article. For Gilbert, what I'm trying to say is that I know he is notable - yes he's a solid cyclist - but he didn't do anything in this race, other than start it. There are other, non-high profile, cyclists that abandoned the race, for which we'd be able to find a source for their exit, but do they warrant mention? For the CyclingStats comment use the normal template you use to add a reference that you use for the prose. Oh and references aren't necessary in the lead because everything stated there should be found in the article and referenced there. If you find the gels comment an interesting fact, then cite it; if more than just the rider in question took gels with them I'd maybe mention that when describing the route, saying that due to the course length riders took gels with them to have some type of nourishment while racing. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I took care of everything Disc Wheel said for section 9 except taking the Pozzovivo thing off. I tweaked it instead. How can I erase that sentence as it is a preview and he sat 4th overall and there are two refs? Also, I would suggest Gilbert didn't do much in the race before abandoning because he was riding on a fractured tibia? That doesn't help cycling performance much at all. Also, do I really have to change the 22 Procyclingstats links to refs????? I've never seen that on any article. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Take a look at 2013 Critérium du Dauphiné. This is a great example of how it's done. BaldBoris 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I put all cites which were in link form for the results in template form. I displaced the refs in the intro where they were pertinent in the article and I added a couple of others. I stamped out some passages that I couldn't find a ref for. I also changed some sentences to be more encyclopedic. I am searching for refs everywhere but it looks like we won't get more, I mean, the Guardian doesn't really go into details, the big cycling sites are almost all referenced for all the stages. What is preventing the article from being a GA now, if I may ask? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by almost all referenced? I went ahead and switched out the procyclingstats site (which I'm not sure if is RS) to Cyclingnews sources that have the results and to also trim down article size. I also saw Steephill was being used as a source and I'm not sure if it is RS as well as I believe its just a blog that links to cycling related stuff, but someone else would have to make sure. I removed the Gilbert comment because there is no point for it and you haven't prevented any good reason for its inclusion. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the finding of stage profiles and whatnot, there is a link on each stage's page on cyclingnews (an RS) that has the race profile, i.e here Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell Relentlessly that PCS is not reliable! LMAO This is just abusive. I worked my ass off for this article in the first form it was in and now I work even more to get it to GA. BaldBoris helped a whole lot too. I mean, what do we do from here? I'm at the end of my rope. There may be 5 days left, but I'd like to have an answer for GA FROM THE ORIGINAL REVIEWER as I'd like to help the Tour de France guys (if there are any). I did not think I would have to argue more than edit. Look at my contributions, for 2 days I have been trying to get the article the way you want. You could at the very least be more encouraging. Besides, isn't it better to have a variety of sources instead of only CyclingNews? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In no way am I trying to be negative, I'm just trying to make sure that this article is GA worthy and warrants the GA symbol you want for it. I get that you've put a lot of effort into this article - as you should any article that you nominate for this - but being reviewed is an intensive process, FA even more so. If you don't believe me check out WP Project Military history or Ships those guys do some insane reviews and I admire them for that. If we let every article people thought deserved to be a good article be a good article then being a good article would mean much less than it does. I've been in the same seat as you several times before watching my writing and methods of putting an article get torn to bits especially in my two FA attempts; it sucks but you get used to it and then begin to embrace the feedback. I personally believe my writing has gotten better thanks to all the reviews I've been through. You've done solid work and I commend you for that cause all the cycling articles get no love. Again, I don't mean to offend with my comments, only to better WP. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 01:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Matt, I will take a closer look at all the changes you have made so far. I am very positive that we can bring this to GA and everybody can be satisfied with the result :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: While I agree with your comments here, I would have preferred if you had discussed the major changes you made to the article before doing them, since the disruption is not making my job as a reviewer any easier. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To call an end to one of the debates here: Looking through the archives of the Wikiproject Cycling, I found that the members seem to consider "procyclingstats" a reliable source (see here), so I will too. I will add, @Disc Wheel: that you should have done so too before taking the references out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Things that should still be done:

• I know, this will suck, but since I deemed PCS acceptable, you are free to use this page, which I consider a good reference for what is now ref #11, which at this point I would not consider a RS.
• Concerning the classification leaderships, this result page gives the results for both combativity award and team classification, so you can use it to support that statement. Way better than referencing to the Tour de France, which would be pretty beside the point...

  Well, they give the classifications on the reference you give, but they don't explain them. There are no article explaining how these classification of the Tour de Suisse are compiled since they are all the same as the Tour de France. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   Done My biggest headache are still the stage reports, which still include original research. Take Stage 1 for instance, where you write that Cancellara "sprinted outside of the saddle for the last 100 m" without giving a reference. Also, the reference for the starting times comes from a page I would not consider RS. Therefore, I recommend to scrap the part about when he started (it is also not vital information).

• I am torn when it comes to CyclingQuotes as a RS. On the one hand, I cannot find it in any GA or FA about Cycling, also not on the discussion board of the Project. On the other hand, it seems to be a well resourced site and I myself have fought hard to get F1Fanatic considered a RS for Formula 1, which is also a blog mainly written by one journalist who is very good. So I will post a query about it in the WikiProject and see what the people there say.
• Please, go through all stage reports again and cut everything not mentioned in the given references. I know, it sucks to cut text you worked hard to write, but we cannot accept original research in a Wikipedia article. Most stage reports are very detailed at this point, they will still be very good and comprehensive even if you need to cut away one or the other minor detail.

   Done Stage 9: I'd say, cut the sub-header "Preview" out. Also, don't leave the text indented, since it looks extremely weird now with the image on the left side. Maybe you could also consider removing the picture of Bern alltogether. I'll leave that to you, since it is not a reason to pass or fail anything here, but my rationale would be that it doesn't add anything to the article and makes it even longer than it needed to be.

   Done Maybe you can find a quote from Špilak talking about his victory? That would be nice.

Once again: Thank you for all the good work you're doing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That's it for me. I won't pursue this anymore as it's beginning to take a toll on my private life. To me, editing Wikipedia was always about fun, but this experience has not been fun, and it's no one's fault. I wrote from the live reports written on Cycling news for every stage beginning, so everything said in the first part of the stages is irrevocably in the live reports of cycling news cites. Then I turned on the TV when the stages came on and wrote from what I saw with my own eyes. I had a great time.

All the persons I showed the article to said it is outstanding, so I guess that's worth more than a green template. I'm not about to take a chainsaw and cut the article everywhere because a quidam didn't report what happened. Take the time gaps: I can never reference the time gaps that occur later in the race because I saw it with my own 2 eyes on the television and took it there. I know we can't reference Youtube, even though the stages are there. Thanks to @BaldBoris: a lot, I hope my decision doesn't upset you, but there are things more important in my life than a green template. A wikibreak is in order, unless I can help some TDF guys out. Thanks @Zwerg Nase: and @Disc Wheel: , I'll continue to edit in the future, I'm not angry, just relieved. If Baldboris doesn't want to pursue this, could you judge it now (Although I know it won't pass). Please ask BaldBoris if he wants to continue first though :)

Happy Tour de France to you guys and happy riding Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just let this be your wake up call to the quality control of Wikipedia. If it was easy there would be thousands of crappy articles. Please don't let it take over your life Matt. There's no pressure for you to do anything further. I'll start to have a go on Sun/Sat. BaldBoris 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, Matt. But frankly, that is exactly what I feared you did. Watching a stage and writing a report on it is simply not the way to go on Wikipedia. You will find that, if you keep that in mind, writing Good Articles in the future will be a lot easier and the review process will be a lot less painful. @BaldBoris: should we finish the article up together? I would volunteer to go over stages 1-3, do you think you can do the others? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I edited a bit today and I am seeing Wikipedia differently because of my mistake, but in a good way. The experience has taught me a lot of good things. Next time I'll write an article and try for GA, I'll definitely do it from written reports only, that'll save a lot of pain I did my best to bring the article to GA after the reviews through 2 days of intense editing, but the work felt too huge and I put a lot of pressure on myself. It could be said that I cracked lol. Good luck to you guys. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: I edited stages 1-3 and rephrased them so they only contain info given in the sources. Can you take over the rest? My inquiry into cyclingquotes has so far proved inconclusive... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've sorted out 3-8. I see Matt's started 9, so I'll let him finished it off. I'd say that cyclingquotes is OK for now, but was if it was ever going to FA they'd need be swapped. Note to Matt: Everything in 3-8 is 100% sourced, so can you not take out anything you think is. BaldBoris 19:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked a little more, and we are almost done. One small thing in stage 9: The ref named "Live9" does not point to the live ticker, but to the preview. That seems wrong and also leads to most parts of the report being practically unsourced. If you could swap the reference, placing the right one where it belongs, this is a pass. :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Is it ref 65? It is working now :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see that you took out the cyclingnews preview alltogether, so I put it back in, since I felt it's an important source. But that's it, we are done :) Congratulations, everybody and thank you for you hard work, this is now a Good Article! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, @BaldBoris: High fives all around, I feel you deserve the green template as much as me, so please, add one to your palmares guys! I'll now know what it takes for a GA. Sorry for the little short temper a week ago, some IRL stuff got in the way and I was just too stressed lol. Great job guys Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

After my first batch of edits I wouldn't have felt deserving, but with the route images and serious sorting out, I'll take it. Zwerg Nase, I have to say I felt slightly offended that you didn't give us the same amount of love, after all Wiki is all about collabs. You might want to think about this in future reviews, as it may discourage users from working together again. BaldBoris 15:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it wouldn't have happened were it not for BaldBoris :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 15:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: I'm sorry you didn't feel as loved, I always felt you both deserved all the praise for your work. Or do you mean the barnstar? I just gave Matt the GA one cause he was the nominator, I would count both as equal. Anyway, keep up the good work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Tour de Suisse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702030045/http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/82/39/2-ROA-20150619-E_English.pdf to http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/82/39/2-ROA-20150619-E_English.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)