Talk:2016 Paris–Roubaix

Opening sentence

Hi Racklever. Regarding this edit, I was asked in a couple of GA reviews to move away from the "The 2016 X was the 115th X", because it's a bit tautologous and doesn't immediately describe the event to a lay reader. In the articles I've written recently, I've changed the order so that information goes later in the opening paragraph, as in this edit. Hope that looks OK to you. Relentlessly (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OK --Racklever (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Paris–Roubaix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (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:

I made some minor changes myself. What is left:

• You should put peloton in italics everywhere it appears.
• Race summary: "after coming back from being his crash" - something is not right here.
• Race summary: "he agreed to work fully for Stannard" - pure speculation, you should rephrase this.
• Post-race: Same problem here as with E3, try to find more ways to write "he said".

That's about it. Again, good work! On hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Stepped in and fixed all except point three. The ref does note that pretty clearly, actually, so I don't know how that'd be rephrased without making it incorrect. Wizardman 14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Wizardman! Promoted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 Paris–Roubaix. 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/20160415002332/http://www.cyclingnews.com/paris-roubaix/results/ to http://www.cyclingnews.com/paris-roubaix/results/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uci.html.infostradasports.com/cache/2/TheASP.asp%40PageID%3D102007%26SportID%3D102%26CompetitionID%3D24055%26SeasonID%3D490%26EventID%3D12146%26GenderID%3D1%26ClassID%3D1%26EventPhaseID%3D1444755%26Phase1ID%3D1444791%26TaalCode%3D2%26StyleID%3D0%26Cache%3D2.html?988949

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) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)