Jump to content

Talk:2015 Milan–San Remo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2015 Milan–San Remo 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
April 20, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 27, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Milan – San Remo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I should be able to do this Saturday at the latest. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another good cycling article by Relentlessly. Thank you for your hard work! Some things here needed to be taken care of, especially the harvard style inline citations that did not link to their source. I fixed this issue. I also fixed some other smaller things.

  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:

Some things that I believe should be addressed, but that shouldn't take long:

  • You use the word peloton without explaining what it is. I believe Wikipedia's policy states that users unfamiliar with the topic should be able to comprehend the article without having to click to other pages. So you should explain the word at the first mention.
  • I placed a hold-button to citations because I added a [citation needed] to the statement that Milan-San Remo is a sprinter's race. You should give a source saying that.
  • Report/Tre Capi and the Cipressa: In the last paragraph, you use the word lead two times closely together. Maybe you can find a different phrasing for one of them to improve reading pleasure.
  • Images: Good image from the race in the infobox. But one photo seems too little. Maybe you can add a picture of Degenkolb?
  • Post-race: This is my biggest issue. There should be a small section giving some quotes from the riders. Definitely from Degenkolb on how he felt to win his first monument and maybe from some other riders stating their disappointment.

Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Zwerg Nase. I've addressed the first four points and will try to do the final one tomorrow. Relentlessly (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase, I have now added a "Post-race analysis" section, with both riders' reaction and the effects on the World Tour rankings. Does this satisfy? Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, it's a pass! Congrats! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! For the first issue (about explaining the term peloton) I've removed the extra text after the word explaining it, when peloton is linked to the relevant page. I checked a couple of cycling Featured Articles (1988 Giro d'Italia and Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race) and they don't explain the term in the article, just link to it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if that is common practice... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Milan–San_Remo&oldid=1196689441"