Jump to content

Talk:2009 Giro d'Italia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2009 Giro d'Italia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star2009 Giro d'Italia is the main article in the 2009 Giro d'Italia series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 26, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
November 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
November 15, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 22, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Participation of Lance Armstrong

[edit]

Should it be added to the article that Lance Armstrong has announced to compete in the 2009 Giro? He is by far the most notable cyclist still active, and this would be the first time he rides the Giro. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something to mention in the lead, when there's a little more to say about the race (and when it's definite that he's participated). Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stage recaps

[edit]

Okay, so maybe I'm a journalist at heart, but I just love doing stage recaps as separate articles. I did 2008 Vuelta a España, Stage 1 to Stage 11 and 2008 Vuelta a España, Stage 12 to Stage 21 pretty much on my own, and I think they're all right. I also contributed to such articles for the last two Tours de France. Unless anyone seriously objects between now and, I don't know, April, I'm gonna plan on doing the same for this race. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wild card"

[edit]

This distinction really doesn't mean anything anymore. The organizers of the Grand Tours aren't obligated to invite all the ProTour teams (they used to be), so every team is a "wild card," or, conversely, none of them are. It makes the distinction given in the article kind of meaningless. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe so, but I think it's the official designation.--Smilo Don (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. Find a source (preferably something from race organizers and not a site like cyclingnews that might just be sticking with an old convention) that says so. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 07:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer - "wild card" is a status assigned by the UCI to Professional Continental teams, allowing them to be selected by organizers of UCI ProTour events despite those teams not having ProTour status. Explained here, ironically enough on cyclingnews. As this is not a UCI ProTour event, the distinction is irrelevant. Indeed, three of the Professional Continental teams in this race don't even have this "wild card" status (LPR, Xacobeo Galicia, and Acqua & Sapone). Nosleep break my slumber 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shilling for CyclingNews.com

[edit]

I don't see it as necessary. The little [9] and [10] identify who has said who are favorites and such, and it's not common in other articles to see sources named in text like this. Nosleep break my slumber 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider 2008 Tour de France#Pre-race favourites, for example. Nosleep break my slumber 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--not meaning to quibble, cuz I agree that we don't need to have so much mention of them in the body... Just didn't want it to sound like "people say" or "everyone knows" or "some have said." So long as the ref is clear, there's no need to mention cyclingnews. In a couple of 'em the ref is clear, in a couple others, the maker of the claim isn't apparent. Cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Perhaps "shilling" was a bit strong, but it just seemed quite awkward to me to see the site named in the text like that. Nosleep break my slumber 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two team competitions?

[edit]

Could we have an explanation of why there are 2 team competitions (Fast Team and Super Team). Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is basically a team points competition. "Fast Team" is a team competition like exists in many other races, including the other two Grand Tours. For Super Team, each of the first twenty finishers in a stage earns points (from twenty for first down to one for twentieth) and they go to the team rather than the individual. Here's a ref for it [1], though that ref also explains several other classifications such as Intergiro which aren't included in the table, leading me to wonder if Super Team is necessary for it, either. Nosleep break my slumber 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

[edit]

All right, let's discuss. As I said on Talk:2009 Tour de France, I think the stages table there is plainly inferior to the one that was on this page before the undiscussed change, largely because it contains a redundant, unnecessary field (the stage winner). If you think it needs to be changed, please say why. Nosleep break my slumber 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's quite unnecessary to denote the nation of every start/end city. It can be reasonably assumed that the ones that aren't marked are in Italy, Spain, or France (for whichever race). Nosleep break my slumber 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to existing consensus

To use this type of jersey progress table: Talk:2008 Tour de France#Progress Table

Against using (ITT) and (TTT) in said table: Talk:2008 Tour de France#(ITT) in Jersey Progress table

Particulars of shading for jerseys in stage tables: Talk:2008_Giro_d'Italia#adding_Jersey_Colour

Putting the stage winner in its own cell: There does not seem to have been actual discussion of this, but when User:Peanut4 first edited the article on last year's Tour de France (when we decided to use this table type over the old one) to make this change , it went unchanged for two weeks when everybody and their brother was looking at the article, and has continued to go unchanged to this day.

Please don't go against these consensuses without discussing it and obtaining a new consensus. Consensus can change, but don't just assume that it has. Nosleep break my slumber 18:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overlooking the WP:BRD cycle. There is no obligation to obtain clearance or consensus before making any change at all. Although there is some repetition, I think it is useful to have stage winner and GC leader fields in the list of stages: it provides a side by side analysis of stage type and stage winner, and gives "at a glance" info of the most important fact for the casual visitor for the page, to whom the finer detail of the jersey progress table might be overload. What does seem redundant to me in that table is the icons of green horizontal lines, brown and beige triangles and stopwatches: are we assuming that readers do not understand the concept "mountain" without a picture to illustrate it?Kevin McE (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am overlooking nothing. I do object somewhat to discussion needing to take place only after someone goes against consensus and not before such a change, but that's a piffling matter. I am trying to discuss, but if you look at this talk page, you'll see an awful lot of my snazzy signature and not one of the people who are making these changes. I've reached out to Kov 93 specifically to discuss these matters, but it does not seem that he has much command over the English language. Anons almost never discuss anything, anyway. So what is my recourse then? Just keep reverting until I'm blocked under 3RR? That doesn't sound like a very good idea. Nosleep break my slumber 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standings

[edit]

I know I'm the one who added it, but I must say, this section is ugly as sin. If anyone wants to re-arrange it, move the tables, re-size cells, what have you, feel free. I'm a little too skittish of messing something up. Nosleep break my slumber 18:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that having icons of the jerseys and background colour is overkill. Neither should be there without a key to explain their significance to visitors who are not regular followers of cycling, there may well be WP:Accessibility issues over some background colours, and where we have two or more background colours for one rider in one table it is plain ugly.
Secondly, I would suggest top 5 for each category is plenty (poss top 10 for GC). Are even the team managers the least bit bothered whether Fuji are holding of Milram for that coveted 8th spot in the Trofeo Super Team ranking?
Might there be some benefit in having something like {{UCI team code|THR|2009x}} that returns the one word Columbia, or some other solution to avoid so many two-row fields? Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think anything that awards an actual jersey should go to ten, but I wouldn't mind going down to even just three for the team classifications. I'm reticent to do something like that for ct, since Columbia was the team's proper name last season and it no longer is. Same for the equally cumbersome LPR Brakes-Farnese Vini, though Petacchi in all likelihood won't be in the top fifty of the GC after tomorrow, let alone the top ten. I very much agree that the jersey icons are not needed (I don't think they're needed anywhere at all, and I question why we even have them), and I would discourage shading more than one color for a rider on these tables. I personally would prefer shading, for example, Farrar's youth jersey in the points table, but I'm not wedded to that idea. Nosleep break my slumber 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First of all, the jersey icons are misplaced where they are right now. This is the first time I've seen them been used in this setting, but I could like them if it was possible to place "the number" inside the jersey. Actually this would be an enhancement, but as it stands now it's just in the way.
  2. Secondly, I'm of the opinion that the word "Team" could be exempt from all team names in Wikipedia usage. So that we would use names like just Astana, Gerolsteiner, CSC-Saxo Bank, and Columbia-High Road. Because when on a cycling page, all readers know that we are talking about the cycling team, and not the corporation(s).
I don't think we can realistically do that. The fact is, the UCI-registered names of Columbia-High Road, Katusha, Milram, and Saxo Bank include the word "Team." Curiously, Astana's UCI-registered name is simply Astana, making me wonder if that might need to be moved to Astana (cycling team). But it's not a matter of disambiguation, including those team names, it's a matter of calling the team by its correct name. You wouldn't want to call Cervélo TestTeam just Cervélo, would you (or maybe you would, I don't know)? We could conceivably shorten L.P.R. Brakes-Farnese Vini to LPR Brakes (the team's name prior to getting a cosponsor), but that would be incorrect. See what I mean? Nosleep break my slumber 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Finally, I've always thought that having more than one colour shading in a table makes it confusing. But I see the advantage with the ability to see how the same rider is placed in the other competitions. If someone could create my "number inside jersey"-proposal, I would suggest that we shade the leader of that competition, and only show the jerseys for the rest. If not, then just shading is what we have had and should still use. But we shouldn't shade a players row with multiple colours, if it holds more than one jersey. In this case only the "best jersey" colour should be used. This also means that team competition colours never should be used when shading a player's row. lil2mas (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a much more contentious issue than I first thought. We need to come to consensus over it. Nosleep break my slumber 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional columns in stage list?

[edit]

Is there interest in expanding the table thus:

Stage Date Route Distance Type Stage winner Overall leader
1 9 May Lido (Venice) 20.5 km Team time trial HTC–Highroad[template problem] Mark Cavendish
2 10 May Jesolo - Trieste 156 km Flat stage Alessandro Petacchi Mark Cavendish
3 11 May Grado - Valdobbiadene 198 km Flat stage Alessandro Petacchi Alessandro Petacchi

Although the extra info is available elsewhere (Jersey progress table) this is a more obvious progression from the presentation of early tours, makes the link between stage types and their winners, and shows casual visitors the most important result at a glance.
The first thing we'd need to do is decide whether or not to include these extra columns, then, if yes, how to present them : do we add teams and flags, do we drop the icons that illustrate the stage types to make more space (please!), do we repeat GC leader of stretch columns when it is retained? Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of this idea, but I don't really care. I don't care about the icons, I only included those in the first place because they've been included in the past. If you do this, I'd say definitely stretch the GC cell column for Cavendish's 2 pink jerseys, but I wouldn't do it for Petacchi's consecutive stage wins. Nosleep break my slumber 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this outline to have been added once, but later it was removed because of the duplication of info (from the jersey progress table). I don't remember who added or removed this, but I thought the removal was justifiable, so I didn't revert it, neither did anyone else.
I can although understand that the stage winner is more appropriate to have in the stage overview. But the GC-leader should then be kept out of that table. The stage winner should then be presented with {{flagathlete}} and maybe followed by a column stating his team (as the UCI Europe Tour format) or his team in brackets underneath his name (like the UCI ProTour format), but this causes the table to double in length. But the GC-leader still has no purpose in that table.
When it comes to stage icons, I think this is a great addition, since this makes it easier e.g. to spot which stage is a "sprinter's stage", thanks to EdgeNavidad. lil2mas (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the icons, the principle governing such images is that they should add information, rather than being purely decorative. Given that the words Flat stage immediately follow the icon, the rectangle whose upper half is blue and whose lower half is green adds no additional information. Kevin McE (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MOSICON: Icons may be helpful as "they can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. However, since not all readers can do this, the icons should be accompanied with names and/or the use of sortable tables."
This is why they have been used in this table, hence it is not purely decorative! lil2mas (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But given that there are a very limited number of ways that stages can be described, and the phrases are quite distinct, even in length, I would suggest that it is difficult to argue that scanning the list (never more that 21 items) is arduous for any literate user. The icons fail in this task anyway, as they do not distinguish between ITT and TTTKevin McE (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All readers aren't as literate as you, but you cannot argue against it being easier to spot symbols than text in the same colour? All the symbols are accompanied by a description, as per the MOS. There aren't symbols for everything, you know. E.g. relays in athletics or skiing, uses the same icons as when competing individually. Actually, I can't see why you bother having this discussion? How many times have you started this discussion without getting any support? Please don't let your own preferences ruin our great Cycling project, this is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Let's get back to your initial wish here; to include the stage winner & GC-leader in the same table as the stage description. I support having the stage winner included (with the use of {{flagathlete}}), but the GC-leader belongs in the Jersey progress table. lil2mas (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's up to me to disagree. I like the table the way it is now, because it replicates the presentation ceremonies at the end of each stage. However, I wouldn't be upset if a consensus decided to include the stage winner with the stage table. But I prefer leaving it the way it is, since the other Grand Tour races on WP have employed a similar format. AyaK (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISD is actually ISD-NERI

[edit]

I moved the team page and updated the relevant templates, but the fun part is this name change seems to have occurred during the Giro - reported here on May 13. How does that effect our usage in this article and others relevant for this race? Nosleep break my slumber 04:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this also presents one of the only possible problems with {{ct}}, when a team goes by one name and changes after we've already been using the template for that year, but I think that's resolved by having both 2009 and 2009a display "ISD" and 2009b display "ISD-NERI" Nosleep break my slumber 05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall length of the race

[edit]

No, I don't believe every stage was xxx.00 kilometers, but I also just kind of think that 20.5 + 156 + ... + 14.4 = 3456.5. I mean, doesn't it? These are the stage lengths the race officially published, so they're the correct lengths. Of course 500 meters doesn't make any difference in a three-week race, but,,, I don't know what else to say, it's the correct total of the stage lengths. I fail to see why it needs to be taken out. Nosleep break my slumber 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the total of the distances rounded to the nearest km (for mass start stages) and the total distance. We have an inconsistency that only TTs have distance reported to nearest 100m: but it is a mathematical error (although it might, by coincidence, be accurate) to claim that one can claim total distance to nearest 100m based on data that is only accurate to the nearest km. Indeed, do we know whether they rounded to the nearest km, or might they have rounded down? The total at the bottom of the stages box ought to match the infobox. And what do appropriate WP:RSs report as the total distance. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something for the eventual GA reviewer to address, then. Nosleep break my slumber 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you write 3456.5 km, you suggest that this length is known up to the nearest 100 m. This is not true, because most stage lengths are known up to the nearest 1000 km. If I would have answered 3456.5 km in school, the answer would have been wrong, because of the misleading accuracy. If you would write 3456.5±0.5 km I could agree on a scientific basis, but I think it's better to just round to km. Or even better, source the number.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Don't know why I'm going to address these point-by-point, since no one's gonna be here to converse with me, but...

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Giro d'Italia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Well-written?

  • In third paragraph of lead section, please define queen stage to the average reader.
  • In last paragraph of lead section, please spell out CERA. Also, was Di Luca's positive B-sample confirmed? It was not clear on this.
  • In the Teams section, list the nationalities on all teams that participated in the Giro d'Italia.
    • Nope. Big wrangling with WP:CYC ended with the decision that trade teams functionally don't have nationalities. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll follow consensus. Pretty much everyone but me made the argument that a team's nationality is a) trivial and insignificant and b) something they can simply choose. For example, the UCI-registered nation of LPR Brakes–Farnese Vini is Ireland, despite the fact that their title sponsors are Italian and almost all of their ridership and staff is Italian. Yet the only thing calling them an "Italian team" is public perception, something that can't be cited. If they wanted their UCI registry to be Italy, all they would have to do is move their license to an Italian holding company. Now, naturally, there are teams like Quick-Step, Euskaltel–Euskadi, and Garmin–Slipstream whose UCI registry nations do match their "perceived" nationality, but it's maybe 50/50 with teams registered in their perceived nation, if not a slight majority to teams being registered elsewhere. There are also teams like Cervélo TestTeam and Team Columbia–High Road who have UCI registry nations, but have no "perceived" nationality at all, largely because their riderships are so diverse. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Race previews and favorites section, why was defending race champion Alberto Contador excluded from the Astana team? For this section and all sections after this, please list the riders' nationality for the prose prior to the results the first time they are mentioned.
  • In the Race overview section, spell out UCI.
  • In the Classificaiton leadership, include the nationalities of all riders listed in the table for the jersey leaders.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?

  • Pass - no issues.

3. Broad in coverage?

  • Pass - no issues.

4. Neutral?

  • Pass - no issues.

5. Stable?

  • Pass - no issues.

6. Image

  • On the Infobox, for map of the tour, what are the red lines and what are the green lines? The map image looks fuzzy also.
    • The red lines are distances the riders covered on their bikes. That is, the stages themselves. The green lines are distances over which they traveled by bus and car. This can be made clearer. I'm not terribly apt when it comes to images, so I don't know what to do about any fuzziness.
  • In the Race overview section, include Garzelli's first name and nationality in the image and Do no set the image at a specific value. The thumb size will take care of itself.

7. Overall.


MOS

[edit]

WP:BOLDTITLE - Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail

So 2009 Giro d'Italia should not contain a wikilink.

MOS:UNLINKDATES - Month-day articles (February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject.

So don't wikilink 9 May and 31 May. It might be better to insert 9–31 May than "9 May to 31 May" though.

We also need to say briefly what the Giro d'Italia is - a Grand Tour. We could say "long distance cycle race" or something, but why not use the correct term and its article. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "The 2009 Giro d'Italia was the 92nd running of the Giro d'Italia" looks a bit repetitive... Don't you think? Why not wikilink the first "Giro d'Italia" and just write "race" for the second? --78.13.197.173 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive? Maybe. But I don't think it's a problem. The "2009 Giro d'Italia" is the name of this specific event. The "Giro d'Italia" is the name of a yearly event whose specific editions are similar to one another but distinct enough that "2009 Giro d'Italia" and "Giro d'Italia" are not synonyms. I know you're not arguing that they are, but just that they have distinct connotations makes repeated usages ok by me. And, as I linked, the boldfaced restatement of the article title generally shouldn't have a wikilink. Hopefully the next GA reviewer will weigh in on this. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Giro d'Italia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

--maclean (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
  • In the Infobox, the map caption could be more concise and informative. Perhaps: "Overview of the stages; route from Venice to Rome covered by the riders on the bicycle (red) and distances between stages covered by bus or car (green)."
I changed this, and I also added an alt text for the image. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teams"
    • "Fuji–Servetto, on the other hand, was simply declined an invitation at first,[7]" - the citation does not say they declined, but rather they were not invited.
      • I'm not sure what the problem is. "Not invited" and "were declined an invitation" are synonymous, aren't they? Reference 6 makes it clearer - RCS Sport included 14 ProTour teams in the list. Cofidis, Euskaltel, Française des Jeux and Fuji Servetto all miss out. However the first three of these had already hinted they did not want to ride the Giro, while the weakness of the Fuji team perhaps explains their snub. so would it be better to ditch reference 7? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 22 teams who took part in the race were:[9]" - that citation does not list the teams. That ref talks about re-organizing the 10th stage.
  • "Race previews"
    • "Andrew Dampf (2009-04-16). "Lance Armstrong confirmed for Giro despite surgery". Yahoo! Sports. Retrieved 2009-04-20." - seems to be a bad link.
    • "It was also noted that three time trials, including the insertion of an unusually long time trial mid-race, might favor a rider such as Leipheimer.[16]" - the citation mentions that there are 3 time trials but doesn't seem to support the rest of the sentence.
  • "Stages"
    • "The tenth stage was planned to exactly mimic a stage from the 1949 Giro d'Italia, in homage to the winner of that stage Fausto Coppi, but the race organizers were forced to alter it to cover only the Italian side of the Alps rather than also visit France, as there were concerns over the availability of radio communication in the area.[9]" - the citation does not attribute the stage to an "homage to the winner of that stage Fausto Coppi" + please add " | agency = " to the cite news templates to attribute Reuters.
      • Will add one that does. There's plenty out there. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • The citation added does not support the sentence. -maclean (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
          • Yes it does..? Initially scheduled to take the peloton over five mountain passes in homage to one of the most spectacular day's racing in the Giro's history (stage 17 of the 1949 race from Cuneo to Pinerolo saw Fausto Coppi stage one of the greatest solo breakaways in cycling's history), the stage has had to be redesigned due to a series of landslides. What is the problem? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Article: in homage to the winner of that stage (and the 1949 Giro itself) Fausto Coppi
            • Reference: in homage to one of the most spectacular day's racing in the Giro's history --maclean (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I still don't see what the problem is, but I added three more references that support this claim. Hopefully at least one is suitable? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is important for Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the references say. The reference previously provided said the Stage was a tribute to an historic day of racing but the WP article said it was in homage to one man generally and the entire 1949 Giro. From the new refs:
                • Refdailypeloton (5/17/2009) - "in homage to one of the most spectacular day's racing in the Giro's history"
                • Refdailypeloton (5/19/2009) - "his year's "Cima Coppi" (highest point in the race), paying tribute to Fausto Coppi's extraordinary solo victory"
                • Reflondoncyclesport - "The 2009 Giro d'Italia paid homage to Fausto Coppi" - Does this reference violate restriction 1 of WP:ELNEVER wrt Sporza Live?
                • Reftelegraph byline - "Luca won stage 10 of the Giro d'Italia as the country's greatest ever cyclist - Fausto Coppi - was remembered on the 60th anniversary of his most famous day in the saddle."
                • Please remember, WP:V says "verifiability, not truth". I can appreciate the difficulty here as these refs are all saying something different about this race is a tribute to something different from the 1949 Giro. In these cases, it is probably best to elaborate, providing context, and attributing the sources directly, like "The dailypeloton wrote whatever was 'in homage to one of the most spectacular day's racing in the Giro's history'[19] as Fausto Coppi was remembered for whateveritwasthatwassoamazingaboutthatday."[20] --maclean (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Race overview"
    • "out-dueled" - is this a cycling term or a euphemism? If it is a euphemism, please select a more literal term.
    • "wearer" - is wearer actually used?
    • "Menchov consistently got the better of Di Luca, and with his superior time trialing skills he was able to emerge as Giro champion." - unclear who "he" refers to.
      • Is it? For one, Menchov is already mentioned as Giro champion, and he's also the subject of the sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult here, maybe this is something that makes perfect sense to me but not others since I've been reading this article several times a day for months, but surely you don't want "Menchov consistently got the better of Di Luca, and with Menchov's superior time trialing skills Menchov was able to emerge as Giro champion.", do you? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you have to explain it, then it probably is not as clear as you think it is. A danger of reviewing your own work is that, as you have inundated yourself with all the background research, it makes complete sense in your own mind but someone without that advantage stumbles. You don't have to constrain yourselves to re-arranging these exact same words in one sentence: you can elaborate or eliminate something and/or make it 2 or more sentences. -maclean (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The youth classification was won by Kevin Seeldraeyers, who remained consistent after Thomas Lövkvist, who for a day even led the general classification, lost tremendous time on Stage 16." - one too many "who"s in this sentence makes it difficult to follow.
  • "World Rankings points" - which reference can confirm the info in this section?
  • After reading 2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1 to Stage 11, I think Horrillo's accident and the resulting protest afterwards is extraordinary enough to mention in this article on the race. -maclean (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many riders, total, competed on these 22 teams? Could you add this to the "Teams" section?
Conclusion

While the article has some rough patches it is coming together. Please respond to the above notes. I have no problem with the broadness, there are a few question marks on some of the references. These are some well-contructed tables. I considered Wikipedia:Embedded list with respect to this article; I think both "Jersey wearers" and "Other classifications" is best organized as lists. I am also aware of some instability over the last week with 78.13.197.173's edit being reverted — but this seems to be over issues of style rather than anything substaniative. I hope 78.13.197.173 signs up for an account and contributes more in the future. -maclean (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I as well. Do you have an opinion on the repetition of "Giro d'Italia" in the lead, as the IP and I briefly discussed? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by I think both "Jersey wearers" and "Other classifications" is best organized as lists. ? What revisions do you propose? Thanks for reviewing! Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I altered the puncuation above to make it more clear. It is me writing to anybody reviewing this evaluation. Those sections come close to violating GA criteria 1b. I'm saying that I aware the situation but am not going to take any action as I don't think the suggested alternatives would be better in these particular situations. maclean (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you once again for the review. Not that this should have influenced your decision on passage, but I hope you can appreciate that I've been working my tuchus off on this one, and will continue to do so on the stage articles (large-scale revision to both coming in the next few hours). Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Doping

[edit]

Is the positive doping test given by Gabriele Bosisio in the control taken just before this event something that should be mentioned in this article? I'm not sure if the control was run by the same people who did them during the Giro, but I have to think so, and the fact that Bosisio was a teammate of Di Luca's might mean something, too. Is it significant that Bosisio was briefly race leader in 2008? Does this merit mentioning at all? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is to be removed from the 2009 Giro results due to that test, it should be mentioned here. Otherwise, I think it should not be here but only on Bosisio's article. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure there's every likelihood he will, just like Di Luca, but I don't know if the 27th place finisher being removed will be as newsworthy as the 2nd place finisher being removed. So we may not really hear about it. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random points and questions

[edit]

I'll just leave all my anal points and questions from the copyedit here.

  • Any reason why "22" is in numbers in the lead and spelt out in the body (even inconsistency there)?
    • I'm never quite sure what the rules on spelling out numbers are supposed to be. At the FAC, Sandy Georgia said that Lars Bak earning "2 points" in the World Rankings section was an error, but "170 for Menchov and two for Bak" seems odd to me (numerals for one and spelling out the other). Surely "one hundred seventy for Menchov and two for Bak" is unnecessary. If twenty-two should be spelled out, then let's spell it out.
  • I reckon you could easily merge Teams and Race previews and favorites.
    • How so? The flow is illogical is if "teams" follows "favorites," as we need to specify the teams before we specify the riders. Do you suggest nesting them both as subsections under a higher heading (maybe ==Race preview== ===Teams=== ===Overall contenders===?)
      • Probably not at all, I thought it could work, but in retrospect the current format is more logical than anything else. Apterygial
  • Why "Milan – San Remo" and not "Milan–San Remo"?
    • We were told at the FLC for List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia that team names need to be endashed and not hyphenated, and any name that includes a space needs the endash spaced, apparently to avoid confusion. This led to a massive movement of team articles, and apparently this race article. Currently, we seem to be debating "Sanremo" versus "San Remo" on that article's talk page. The spacing of the endash here seems to be an application of that guideline.
  • Many overlinks when the Race overview section starts, teams/some riders linked before.
  • Maybe add a bit to the effect that the Di Luca saga has not yet been completed in the Race overview section. Apterygial 03:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assess at A-Class

[edit]

I'd like to assess this article at A-Class. Protocol is for a proposal to be made and, if supported by two uninvolved editors (aka not me), the article can be promoted. So if anyone agrees, please say so. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by the FA promotion :-D Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Here are some additional comments/suggestions.

  • Suggest changing "the many medium mountain and mountain stages" to "the many mountain and medium mountain stages". To the non-initiated "mountain and mountain" is quite jarring.
    I'll also just note that the phrase "medium mountain" doesn't appear in the rest of the article; you use "intermediate" in the description of the route.
    The two are essentially synonyms. RCS, the organizers of this race, refer to such stages with a verbose phrase like "stage on medium summit arrival." So does Unipublic, the organizer of the Vuelta a España. ASO, who run the Tour de France, specifically use "medium mountain stage," though, which may explain the seemingly inconsistent usage. I suppose it would be simplest to swap it out in the lead. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marked closely" in the lead is cycling jargon, though I think I know what it means (he stayed with him on breakaways). Could it be "defended vigorously against attacks"? Or more of a rephrase: perhaps "his closest challenger, Danilo Di Luca, attacked repeatedly during the mountain stages of the last week, but Menchov stayed with him" or "but Menchov successfully defended his lead". Not sure these are right, but I would like to lose "marked".
  • The last sentence of the lead says "doubt"; you could add that Di Luca is still in the appeals process to make it clearer why there's doubt, rather than Di Luca's results having been annulled (or whatever the word is).
  • I just noticed "Palmarès" in the infobox. No doubt this is a standard term; if there is no satisfactory English word to use, could we have it link to Bicycling_terminology#P, at least?
  • "Every city that hosted a stage start or finish in the first Giro was visited in this edition": "edition" just sounds weird to me. Is it standard usage in cycling? It's not ambiguous, just not a usage I know. Would "visited in 2009" be OK instead?
  • "The type of stage together with the average speed of the winner decided the time cut – the amount of time a cyclist can use to finish the stage before he is eliminated from the race." Two comments here. First, is it worth adding "time cut" to the Bicycling terminology article, and even linking it? Second, I don't like the sequence of tenses: it starts in the past tense, then switches to present tense, which implies to the reader that we're now reading a definition; but then "the stage" instead of "a stage" reads as a reference to this race, not a general definition. I'd at least change it to "a stage", but it could also be something like this: "The type of stage together with the average speed of the winner decided how much time each cyclist would be allowed to finish that stage before being eliminated from the race", and cut out "time cut" altogether, since it's apparently not familiar enough to be used without an inline definition.
  • "Fuji-Servetto were originally declined": I see what you mean, and my edit was incorrect, but I think it needs rephrasing in that case -- it's too easy to misread it as I did.
  • Would a {{main}} hatnote be better than {{seealso}} for the "Race overview" section?
    • I don't think so. The section here provides an adequate overview of the race, sufficient for a description of a race of this size as a whole. The stage breakdown articles provide greater detail, such that if they appeared here, the article would be ludicrously big. Consider other articles, on shorter races, such as 2009 Tour de Suisse for one, where the stages do appear in the race article. Or am I making your own point for you? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed I think you are. Maybe we could get another opinion on this, but it seems to me that this is a perfect example of summary style, which typically uses {{main}} hatnotes. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lövkvist had, for one day, led not just the youth but also the general classification.[42]" His lead was after stage 4, and we're talking about stage 16, so perhaps this should be pointed out to the reader. How about "Lövkvist had, earlier in the race, led not just the youth but also the general classification, though only for a single day."
  • "The most visible cause for the protest occurred during the eighth stage, when Rabobank rider Pedro Horrillo sustained numerous fractures and head injuries ...": that "occurred ... when" construction is a bit ugly. How about "The most visible cause for the protest was Rabobank rider Pedro Horrillo's accident during the eight stage; Horrillo sustained numerous fractures and head injuries ..."?
  • "the criterium being neutralized – that is, each rider getting the same time as the stage winner regardless of when they actually finished": I think this could make it clearer that the organisers agreed to the neutralisation; this was not something that happened during or after the stage, it was a change made before the stage. How about "the criterium being neutralized – that is, the race director agreed that each rider would get the same time as the stage winner regardless of when they actually finished"?
  • I suggest unlinking all the team names in the "Race overview" section; all the teams are linked in the earlier list of teams, and this is just prose, so the aesthetic comments with regard to tables don't apply.
  • "Top ten of the individual standings after the Giro d'Italia": could this just be "Top ten individual standings ..."?

That's everything I could see. Off out to dinner; will have a look when I get back. I hope this is helpful rather than annoying; I think it's a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. If we've gotten to the point of quibbling over individual words, that's a great sign. Thanks. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on 2009 Giro d'Italia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2009 Giro d'Italia. 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) 14:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Giro_d%27Italia&oldid=1199799919"