Jump to content

Talk:1906 Tour de France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1906 Tour de France 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1906 Tour de France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Participants section, is this ---> "enthousiastic" the correct spelling? In the Race details, this ---> "...trying to stop their favourite's opponents" reads very odd.
    Half-check.
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, "4th" ---> "fourth", it seems better that way.
    Check.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References 9 and 15 are missing Publisher info.
    Check.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the work-parameter to the reference templates. (If I am not mistaken, these website are the work and not the publisher.) And you are absolutely correct, "fourth" is better than "4th". --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one question about this sentence ---> "...trying to stop their favourite's opponents", if it can be answered, you'll have yourself a GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the Cycling project for some help on that sentence (English is not my first language, so sometimes I produce awkward writing), and I think they came up with an excellent solution, that is now in the article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe it was an international thing at first, but the more I read it the more I knew did not make sense, so I had to bring it up. Thank you to EdgeNavidad for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1906 Tour de France. 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:

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) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1906_Tour_de_France&oldid=1195887467"