Talk:2016 Paris–Roubaix/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)