User talk:Turini2

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilfrid Newton has been accepted

Wilfrid Newton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buses

Hello, I have been slowly working on bus route articles for a while now. Today, I have re-created the page London Buses route 96. NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT Hi - adding new routes is not something that interests me hugely, I'm doing a fair bit of updating of accessible and electric/hybrid stuff at the moment (as well as bus stations), and trying to add relevant history to relevant articles - first low floor route, first hybrid bus, first electric route. Thanks for getting in touch :) Turini2 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, and good luck. Unfortunately it seems some folks are not interested in bus content on Wikipedia and will try and get it deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think its fair that not every bus route will be notable - I suspect that most of the notable ones have already been written... Well, we'll just have to find those golden needles in the haystack. :) Turini2 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely an "inclusionist" here, and not just concerning bus routes! NemesisAT (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edit on London Buses route 507, and thought I should clarify. That ref was taken out by a user who has worked to get various bus-related lists and articles deleted. I worry that removal of sources will lead to "there aren't enough sources" in the future and wind up in the article being nominated for deletion. But maybe I'm being too cynical! If you're confident we don't need the extra ref, I'm happy to leave it off. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I think there's a difference between an article with not very many sources and one overburdened with 5 sources for every single point. Having had taken a look, I think the Evening Standard ref would be fine given its reputation, but one more couldn't hurt. I just start seeing alarm bells when I see statements with loads of citations against them! Turini2 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Northern line extension to Battersea

On 2 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern line extension to Battersea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the tunnel boring machines that dug the London's new Northern line extension were named after the first British astronaut Helen Sharman, and British aviation pioneer Amy Johnson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern line extension to Battersea. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Northern line extension to Battersea), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Newton

Hello. Given this edit[1] you may want to know JelenFolf did the same thing to like a dozen articles to delink the MTR § MIS section[2], and to share your ideas at Talk:MTR. 124.217.188.171 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class 455 infobox

Hi,

I have reverted the removals you made from the infobox in the Class 455 article. I don't believe that the level of detail provided contravenes either of WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:EXCESSDETAIL, noting that both of those pages appear to be directed primarily at the text within the body article). Indeed, presenting that sort of technical data in the infobox would arguably satisfy the direction in WP:INDISCRIMINATE that ... Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability ....

I understand that the Class 455 infobox could appear to be particularly unwieldy, and would note that that's the case because it is a complicated class for which to provide information - it includes significant components taken from an entirely different class of units, and has further undergone a number of changes over its time in service. If that wasn't the case, then the infobox would look much like one in an article for a simple class - the parameters used to construct the infobox are all standard and the information contained in them is also provided for many other BR classes when it is available.

Thank you for your understanding. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on the British Rail Class 455 article page. Turini2 (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Beckton Riverside DLR station" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Beckton Riverside DLR station and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6#Beckton Riverside station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turini2 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi there, I'm trying to find out how I can update one of the images for Brooklands Museum that Google is pulling from Wikipedia and using as the lead image for the museum. Unfortunately it isn't representative of what the museum offers so ideally we would like to use an alternate image in its place which will hopefully help us attract more visitors. Are you able to help? I noticed you made an update to the page last year and have some experience in motorsport 81.131.103.212 (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@81.131.103.212: The Brooklands Museum lead image right now is this image here. Looks okay to me, but then again I haven't been to Brooklands for a v long time! The image I see on Google when I search for the museum is this. The best thing for you to do is 1) declare your conflict of interest (if any - do you work for the museum?) - details on how to do that is here and 2) ask your question regarding the image on the Talk:Brooklands Museum page. They'll probably be an editor more closely related/interested in that article who can help you/seek consensus if the image should be changed or not. I hope this helps! Turini2 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Turini2, Thank you for creating Alexandre da Cunha. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the new article, it looks great!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ . (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thanks for your comment! Turini2 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Tour de France

On 25 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Tour de France, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on updating this. There's been many sports articles recently that have missed being posted because they haven't been properly updated, so good to see the TdF on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And let's try to get the same done for 2022 Tour de France Femmes once it has finished. Kiwipete (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwipete exactly! *virtual high five* Turini2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwipete on this topic - you may want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#ITNR_Proposal:_Add_Tour_de_France_Femmes :) Turini2 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Tour de France Femmes

On 1 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Tour de France Femmes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 23:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And hopefully the TDFF can be added to WP:ITN/R too... Turini2 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Vleuten or van Vleuten?

I'm not at all an expert on Dutch names, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, all sources seem to use "van Vleuten" rather than "Van Vleuten" (except at the start of a sentence, of course). Thanks for reverting your edit of this :) Kiwipete (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwipete oh I got it the WRONG way round lol - okay, I'll change the Annemiek van Vleuten article too. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are 95 and 96 Tube Stock have the same sounds used for Alstom Metropolis units in Singapore?

I know that Alstom Metropolis C751A and C830 units are having the same sounds as these 2 on the London Underground. CastJared (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CastJared Why did you move this conversation to my talk page? You should have talk page conversations in one location. WP:MULTI

Firstly, the 95 and 96 Stock trains don't sound the same - the 96TS uses an older Gate turn-off thyristor traction motor design. Secondly, just because a train sounds similar - doesn't mean that it's related, it means it probably shares similar traction motor technology - e.g. the "singing train" in Japan (Keikyu 2100 series) and the Siemens Taurus locomotive. Turini2 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York City Subway

I manual revert the template, involving the Death of Michelle Go, but one editor, @Cards84664 reverted it back. But how did you manual revert after I did manual revert before Cards reverted mine? CastJared (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CastJared It's not a major incident, so it doesn't belong in the template. Around 10 people died in the subway last year, they don't all need to be in the template. Turini2 (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Northern line extension to Battersea

The article Northern line extension to Battersea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern line extension to Battersea for comments about the article, and Talk:Northern line extension to Battersea/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Thanks hugely for your help with this!! Turini2 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into La Vuelta Femenina. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I have corrected the issue. Izno (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno Thanks! I'll remember this for next time. (and yes, it's because there was already something there) Turini2 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NTfL

FYI: your "rewrite lead for consistency with other LU articles" included incorrectly setting the |url-status= parameter of a citation back to "live" when it was in fact quite dead, and pointing to a defective archive capture to boot. I hope that part's not consistent with other LU articles. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175 My apologies - I think that's because I started the edit while looking at the difference between your edits to the page. Did not intend to do that one bit! Thanks. Turini2 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2023 La Vuelta Femenina

On 12 May 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 La Vuelta Femenina, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 02:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give you a favor...

Today is the final day of the 2023 Giro d'Italia. What a Giro it has been! The last 2 weeks have been incredible.

I give you a favor, if you can make a summary for the entire Giro like what you do with the La Vuelta Femenina, and, if possible, put the article in the "In the News" section.

You might also want to add a summary on each individual stage, especially since there is no summary for stage 12 to 20 (stage 21 is still to be held).

Thank you. WL Pro for life (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WL Pro for life I tend to focus on women's cycling - balancing out the attention that the men's events usually get. I don't have time to write for the Giro unfortunately, sorry. You can do it if you want, don't let me stop you! Turini2 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2022 Tour de France Femmes

The article 2022 Tour de France Femmes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2022 Tour de France Femmes for comments about the article, and Talk:2022 Tour de France Femmes/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2023 Tour de France

On 27 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Tour de France, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 05:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2023 Tour de France Femmes

On 31 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Tour de France Femmes, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 09:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alstom Aventra

I feel that my edit to Alstom Aventra is benificial as the previous image was of a variant that looks nothing like the other ones. EJD799 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on the Aventra page. Turini2 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paris–Roubaix Femmes

Hi Turini2, could you please tell me what this edit is? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's me making an colossal error, it looks like I've dragged the last "es" of Femmes into the word Paris. Apologies! Now fixed Turini2 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but I have just made a(nother) small correction. Is there something weird about Visual Editor that caused this? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

potentially! Thanks for your help in fixing it! Turini2 (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Turini2. Thank you for your work on 2024 Tour de France Femmes. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn No worries - thanks for your message! Turini2 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit notes for 2022 Tour de France Femmes

This is in response to your WP:GOCER request for FAC copyedit of 2022 Tour de France Femmes. I thought I would handle this as I would at FAC (would this be your first FAC submission?) with notes and suggestions rather than direct edits to the article. Let me know if you'd prefer I edited the article directly (which is simpler but less informative). Feel free to ask questions or make comments here.

Please take the following as constructive suggestions. I might be a little more insistent if I was reviewing the article at FAC, but I'll let you figure out what best serves the article. FAs are supposed to adhere to all of the MOS unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, so I'll be looking at a lot of that. I feel some of the tone is leaning toward sports journalism and will also be looking to remove some redundancies and superlatives for a tighter encyclopedic summary.

The first thing I noted is that the lead appears to be a bit on the long side at 5 paragraphs. Prosesize lists the article at 14k of readable prose, so per WP:LEADLENGTH it should have a lead of 1 or 2 paragraphs. (This should have been addressed at the GA review.) I took a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles § Cycling and 3 of the 4 Tour de France FAs have the lead at 3 paragraphs, which I would find acceptable here (it's very close to the LEADLENGTH threshold of 15k). I would suggest merging the content of the 2nd and 5th paragraphs into the lead paragraph (example below).
- I feel that focus should stay on the 2023 race and some of the lead material which better fits in the main article Tour de France Femmes should not be repeated in this article's lead. In particular, the historic background details.
- Grand Tour (cycling) § Women's Grand Tour events suggests that sources are mixed on whether this event should be called a Grand Tour. I have not surveyed the sources, but if true I would suggest removing this from the lead. Tour de France has enough name recognition that most readers will know it's an important race.

The 2022 Tour de France Femmes (officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) was the first edition^[2] of the Tour de France Femmes, which took place from 24 to 31 July 2022.^[1] It was the 16th event in the 2022 UCI Women's World Tour and followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France.^[3] The race drew large crowds and had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders.

I feel that there is inconsistency with the presentation of the name for Annemiek van Vleuten. Assuming that the biography article title is correct, I believe that without the given name it should be van Vleuten and only Van Vleuten if it begins a sentence. In a case like this, per MOS:PERSONAL, we should use the capitalization that the person themselves use. Whichever way she prefers it, it should be consistent throughout the article.
The infobox graphic is quite large and the text almost unreadable. It's perhaps outside the scope of a copyedit but I would suggest cropping out the large blank area, avoiding italics, and simplifying if possible.
The winning time is given as 26h 55' 44". Per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS (near the very end of the table) this should be one of 26:55′44″ (no spaces) or 26 hr 55 min 44 sec or 1 h 30 m 7 s (html code for non-breaking spaces between number and unit abbreviation). In the first of these, the ticks are typographically known as prime and double prime (html code ′ ″), and are used as shorthand for units with time, angles, feet-and-inches, etc. It's probably best to use the format with prime and double prime in infoboxes and tables where space is limited; in the text one format should be used consistently through the article (unless there's a reason to write out hours-minutes-seconds in full). This is incorrect; see 24 Dec comment below.
I would suggest removing the flag icons from the infobox. I realize this has become a standard for Tour de France articles, but it doesn't seem justified to me in the context of the article. The athletes are competing for their teams and not directly representing their registered countries on the tour. While their individual performances may earn them points toward qualifying for a national team, that's a bit far removed, and it is also common for lower-ranked teammates to sacrifice their standing to benefit a higher-ranked teammeate of a different nationality. It seems like style creep, and the infobox is already pretty large, busy, and colourful, with different elements competing for attention and distracting the reader. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE recommends to include only the defining characteristics of the subject (ie: the 2022 Tour de France Femmes) with a less-is-more approach. And it's odd to give premium space to summarize something which doesn't appear anywhere in the article text.
eventually – This word editorializes, suggesting that something happened later than it should have. If the opinion is important, state it as such with attribution and a source. Otherwise, remove the word and let the reader decide.
stomach bug – This may be too informal, and is a US term. On the other hand, gastroenteritis may be too precise and may have BLP and WP:MEDRS issues. One of the sources quotes her as saying "stomach infection" so suggest going with that (appears twice in article).
24 teams participated in the race. MOS:NUMNOTES discourages starting sentences with a numeral, which is a bit prominent here as it begins a section. Suggest combining with the following sentence as: The 24 teams which participated in the race^[6] were announced on 30 March 2022.^[7]
144 riders from 25 nationalities started the race, the largest percentage of whom were Dutch (20% of the peloton). This seems a bit awkward to me. How about: A total of 144 riders from 25 nationalities started the race, with The Netherlands having the largest contingent (20%).
ASO, ~~the organisers of the race,~~ noted that the prize fund Strike the parenthetic statement as this is already explained in the first paragraph of the body.
Ahead of the race [list of names] were all named as pre-race favourites for the general classification Don't need both "Ahead of the race" and "pre-race", one can be assumed from the other. Also, anyone who is named here can be referred to by surname-only later in the body (MOS:SURNAME), unless there is ambiguity (ie: two people with the same surname), and their names don't have to be linked again later on (MOS:OVERLINKING).
Consider whether the subsections in Race overview make sense. The Early stages section covers the first 6 of 8 stages or 783 of 1033 km total (>75%). The last subsection is Summary; this is a bit different than the Wikipedia definition (eg: WP:Summary style). Maybe 'Results and reception'?
Taking place earlier on the same day of the final stage of the men's Tour, stage 1 of the race started beneath the Eiffel Tower in Paris, before the riders tackled eight laps of a circuit around Champs-Élysées. Could use a little more cohesion. It'd be nice to work the date in there, which isn't previously mentioned in the body except for a table, and maybe why it's important to mention the men's tour. Suggest: Stage 1 of the tour took place on 24 July in Paris, with a start beneath the Eiffel Tower and eight circuits around the Champs-Élysées (the latter being a traditional route which concluded the men's tour later that day). Actually, I don't like latter/later, so maybe the parenthetic could be: (these laps being a tradition which concluded the men's tour later that day).
I feel that you should choose either yellow jersey or maillot jaune as the primary term throughout the article, with the alternate given in parenthesis on first mention in lead and body.
In a sprint finish, Lorena Wiebes (Team DSM) outsprinted Marianne Vos (Jumbo–Visma) to take the first maillot jaune (yellow jersey) of the race, as well as the green jersey of the points classification. Lorena Wiebes can be referred to by surname only since she's already mentioned (2 paragraphs up) and there's no ambiguity. It's not necessary to link the teams (set |nolink=yes in the {{ct}} template). Should it mention the green jersey, or on this first stage would it automatically be paired with the yellow jersey?
Stage 2 to Provins was marred by multiple crashes in the final 30 kilometres (19 mi), with Marta Cavalli (FDJ Suez Futuroscope), one of the favourites for the yellow jersey, having to abandon the race as a result. Can remove the underlined clause which is mentioned two paragraphs up, refer to Cavalli by surname, and unlink her name and her team name.
On the Côte de Mutigny, the peloton split with a select group of seven riders containing most of the general classification contenders going off the front. Perhaps: On the Côte de Mutigny, seven riders contending for the general classification broke away from the peloton.
On the final steep climb to the line, Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig (FDJ Suez Futuroscope) outsprinted the group to take the stage, with the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification now being led by Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg). Perhaps line should be replaced with finish? Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig can have surname only. Not sure if Uttrup should be included. A quick Google search shows 'Ludwig' and 'Uttrup Ludwig' both used. Choose one form to use consistently. The final clause could be rephrased to simplify the sentence structure: and Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification.
Stage 4 to Bar-sur-Aube was another hilly stage but it also involved four sectors of gravel in the final half of the stage. → Stage 4 to Bar-sur-Aube was another hilly stage, its final half including four gravel sections. Link to gravel road which is a North American term.
Following the above, Katarzyna Niewiadoma and Elisa Longo Borghini can be referred to by surname only.
was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar at 175.6 kilometres (109.1 mi) in length. Don't need in length.
In the final sprint, Wiebes took her second stage win from Balsamo and Vos. → In the final sprint, Wiebes overtook Balsamo and Vos to secure her second stage win.
With 86 kilometres (53 mi) still to go, the race exploded as Van Vleuten launched an attack on the Petit Ballon, with only Demi Vollering (SD Worx) able to follow her move. A bit confusing. Suggest: On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton with only Demi Vollering (SD Worx) able to match her pace.
On the second climb of the day, the Col du Platzerwasel, Van Vleuten dropped Vollering a kilometre from the top. On the final climb of the Grand Ballon, Van Vleuten's lead over Vollering increased to almost four minutes. → A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel, the second climb of the day, van Vleuten accelerated ahead of Vollering. Van Vleuten extended her lead to almost four minutes by the final climb of the Grand Ballon.
Van Vleuten lost some time to Vollering on the final plateau section, but she nevertheless powered away to a dominant stage win, 3' 26" ahead of Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM classification. → Van Vleuten lost time to Vollering on the final plateau section, but nevertheless achieved an impressive stage win, 3′26″ ahead of Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM.
With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, the maillot jaune, Van Vleuten suffered a mechanical. SD Worx and Trek–Segafredo soon lifted the pace in the peloton, with Van Vleuten being forced to chase a deficit of almost a minute. After a while, Van Vleuten eventually made it back to the peloton right at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace. The article already states that she has the yellow jersey five sentences earlier so that can be cut. I would be tempted to split the middle sentence and put this in two sentences instead of three: With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, van Vleuten suffered a mechanical and SD Worx and Trek–Segafredo increased the pace of the peloton. Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace.
She passed the remnants of the breakaway while Vollering went in pursuit of the race leader. Much like the previous day, a chase group of GC contenders formed behind the duo. Van Vleuten gradually extended her lead over Vollering towards the finish as she took her second successive stage win, sealing the Tour title in the process. Vollering finished 30 seconds down while also confirming her win in the QoM classification. → She passed the remnants of the breakaway with Vollering in pursuit. Much like the previous day, a chase group of GC contenders formed behind them. Van Vleuten gradually extended her lead and won the stage and the Tour title. Vollering finished 30 seconds behind, confirming her win in the QoM classification.
In the first paragraph of Summary, suggest putting Vos's wins together then breaking the sentence and having the young rider winner, omitting respectively.
one of the hardest races → one of the most difficult races
In the Classification leadership table, the blue link in the dark red cell at the bottom (Demi Vollering, Mountains classification / Final) fails accessibility for colour contrast (MOS:CONTRAST, which falls under accessibility policy). You can see this using WebAIM Contrast Checker with #0645AD foreground for the link colour and #FF3E33 for the cell background. To pass FAC it needs to meet WCAG-2.0 AA as a minimum and preferably AAA. Suggest: changing the text to white and darkening the cell to #EB0C00.
Overlinking in the General classification table. Also the non-typographic ticks.
Alt text for images are required. Alt text should describe the image for someone who can't see it clearly, and be concise if possible (text-to-speech readers convey information at about 1/3 reading speed).
- Infobox image |image_alt=Route map that shows the stages of the 2022 Tour de France Femmes, with their start and finish towns. Could omit the underlined part as assumed: Route map showing the race stages with start and finish towns
- The picture of Vos at the top of Early stages, add alt text with |alt= after thumb. It expects the unnamed but ordered parameters for size (thumb) and justification (right, by default) to come first, so it may be a good idea to have both of those: thumb | right | alt=. The visible caption is last. Suggest the alt text: Woman in yellow jersey smiling for photographers
  - Also, for the visible caption, why isn't it: Marianne Vos wore the yellow jersey on stages 3 through 7?
- The stage 7 picture, suggest alt: Woman bicycling through an alpine village
- The stage 8 picture, suggest alt: Riders cycling in line up a street on a forested hill
- The Summary picture, suggest alt: Cyclists in polka-dot, yellow and green jerseys ride side-by-side, leading the peloton
- The Broadcasting picture, the alt would pretty much be the same as the visible caption, so no need to duplicate that.

I'll leave it at that for now, I think that's most of the big stuff. I'll probably want to take another couple passes through it after you make changes, time permitting. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg Oh my goodness, this is amazing - your work is really much appreciated! It would be my first FAC submission yes, which is why I asked for the assistance. I've tended to use the previous men's Tour de France articles as a guide when I've worked on this - the 2012 Tour de France is the most contemporary featured article.

I'll take a look at your suggestions/thoughts and make changes over the coming days. Turini2 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I'm going to start making the changes myself so that I can close off the copyedit before the end of the month. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished with my copyedit. Please ping me here if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks hugely for this - I've made a few wording tweaks - but it looks wonderful. For future reference, the thing to follow for Dutch names like van Vleuten is the Tussenvoegsel! Turini2 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland I've reverted your MOS:UNITNAMES edits to 2022 Tour de France Femmes - they were undertaken as per the above as part of the copyedit of the article. Turini2 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg and Turini2: The above comments are incorrect; MOS:UNITSYMBOLS lists "1:30′07″" in the red "Unacceptable" column. "Acceptable" formats according to the MOS, for non-astronomy articles like this one, would be "1:30:07" or "1 h 30 min 7 s". I used the latter, but feel free to use the former if you would like more compact notation. -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beland, good catch. I must have been tired that day. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reidgreg (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Thanks both! Turini2 (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation/T&TRKFNF2022

I have created a sockpuppet investigation for T&TRKFNF2022 regarding the continuous addition of unconfirmed opening dates of various Toronto subway lines. You can respond here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T&TRKFNF2022. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Au Thanks! (I'm just gonna reword the talk page header to remove the word wikipedia, I hope that's okay) Turini2 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line 6 Finch West Map Reversal

Hello, recently I have added a map of Line 6 Finch West to the article. I see you have removed it under "Undid revision 1223384821 by Commotatoes (talk) 1) not an improvement imo 2) not a minor edit WP:MINOR"

I understand the minor edit (thank you for clarifying that for me) but I do not understand how a geographical map of the route is not considered an improvement to the page. Was it improperly formatted, or is a map of the line itself not relevant?

I ask this so I have a better idea of what should and should not be contributed. Thank you in advance. Commotatoes (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think the best thing would be to stick this message on the Line 6 Finch West talk page so everyone interested in that article can discuss it there (rather than here, where no one will see it!) I watch that page, so I'll add my two cents after you've put a message there. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commotatoes Oh, I forgot to ping you - sorry! Turini2 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

Please read WP:SDESC specifically the section WP:SDNONE regarding why "none" is a valid short description and deliberate override for a specific purpose. The intentional "none" detailed as "(including those that are intentionally blank; see below)" was the remainder of the line that you quoted in your edit summary. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - that article is not clear imo. Turini2 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it needs to be changed back again, I will not object. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean the short description article wasn't clear - rather than the DLR article. Thanks for your edits! Turini2 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of my recent changes

Hello Turini, since you have undone a number of minor changes I have made to articles, I would like to clarify that all I intend to do is tidy up the grammar so that it is easier to read and remains consistent across all articles relating to tube stock, and remove any information that is incorrect, irrelevant, speculative or redundant. For example on London Underground 1983 Stock it is better to use the word "trains" instead of "sets" within the infobox, and it is obviously incorrect that they were built from 1980!!! TrainBusFan06 (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello – no need to clarify, I understand your edits were made in good faith. :)

In terms of the 1983 stock, your edits weren't supported by the reference – a single three-car unit could be a "train"! Therefore 2 units running in multiple are a trainset or "set". Furthermore, your edits completely removed the dates of construction from the infobox (that's why I reverted it), but you're right – 1980 was wrong. I've now amended the start date of construction with a valid reference.

In future, probably best to put something like this on the relevant article talk page (Wikipedia:MULTI) so everyone can add their 2 cents if necessary. Best wishes! Turini2 (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your understanding. I did start a discussion on some of the talk pages so as to avoid coming across as an edit warrior. Still waiting to see what other editors thoughts are... TrainBusFan06 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Turini2. Thank you for your work on Accessibility of transport in London. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

That is quite a tour-de-force of an article - well done and well referenced and constructed. To the extend that it can be condensed a little more (and 4-paragraph lede installed), that would even be more helpful for casual readers, but great job. thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Aszx5000 (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000 Thanks hugely! I've tried to copy the layout of similar articles in New York, Toronto and Boston, that's why it's concise. Thanks for your feedback! Turini2 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Accessibility of transport in London

Hello! Your submission of Accessibility of transport in London at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have done! Turini2 (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Accessibility of transport in London

On 3 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Accessibility of transport in London, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a third of London Underground stations have step-free access? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Accessibility of transport in London. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Accessibility of transport in London), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2024 Tour de France Femmes

On 20 August 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Tour de France Femmes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC 2022 Tour de France Femmes

Hi, I just saw that your 2022 Tour de France Femmes FAC was archived. I had hoped we could improve it further before they closed it, but c'est la vie, I guess. I wanted to recommend you go through every sentence of the body and check its claims are truly supported by the sources given for that sentence. If not, then add source or adapt text. Then check the lead if it still matches the body. Ping me when you nominate it again, I'd be happy to review again. Good luck. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon I'll do that - thanks hugely for your assistance and support! Turini2 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]