Talk:2015 Eneco Tour/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do this one as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Pre-race favourites: You speak about how Wellens won the previous edition. Two things about that: 1) I think it would be better to write that he won the race with an attack on the penultimate stage rather than in the penultimate stage, since he didn't win it a day ahead of time. 2) The sources just write about that he is the defending champion, not about the nature of his victory, so you should provide a source from 2014 as well.
For future reference: I am seeing this in your articles quite often, that there are parantheses missing around the team name behind the rider's name. You should be more careful here and proofread.
You should take another look at the punctuation in the captions. There should be a full stop for every caption that includes a full sentence (like the photo for stage 2).
I don't quite see how ref 10 includes the info about the classifications and the jerseys. There is a link to the 2013 reglement here, maybe that helps.

Good job so far! I will put this on hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zwerg Nase. In order:

Done.
You're quite right. Fixed the one and I have rigged up some regex to help me fix future articles.
Done.
This is tricky. The information regarding the classifications is not published anywhere as far as I can tell. The only way I could source it was by looking at the official results, which clearly show what the regulations were, albeit only by induction. They don't cover the colours of the jerseys, I agree, and I've added a source that does. I'm not sure what else I can do for this information.

Let me know what you think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I added the 2013 reglement as a source as well. I believe that together, the sources should be sufficient to prove the point beyond doubt. I therefore give this a pass :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]