Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2022 Tour de France Femmes/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2024 [1].

2022 Tour de France Femmes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.

This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck! Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some polite pings - @AirshipJungleman29 who took part in the first review, and @Reidgreg who did the very excellent job of copyediting the article! Turini2 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :) Turini2 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reidgreg

[edit]

As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.

  • I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
  • I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
  • The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris. If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.
  • and not being hard enough for the professional peloton Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.
  • pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.
  • As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the second and third editions of the race?

That's it for now. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA 2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications. Turini2 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you have any further comments or thoughts on this article. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
  • "French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
  • Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
  • "with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!
The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
  • Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.
  • Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.
Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
  • Removed.
  • Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g. La Route de France. It's complicated!
That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
  • Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.
  • Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.
I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
  • Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.
Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
    • Piped to clarify
  • "Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
    • Fixed
  • "We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
    • I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA 2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.
  • "Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
    • Fixed
  • Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
    • Rephrased
  • "with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
    • Clarified

I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild hi - as per above, I've made those edits and redrafted the lead substantially - now 267 words in length (3 paragraphs) rather than 369 words. Turini2 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a fix loop. For example
  • 'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event." ' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
  • There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
  • "chasing back after a mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)

Image review - pass

[edit]

The article uses the following main images:

They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour also needs to end with a period. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended and fixed, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the article passes the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

At four weeks in, the article has failed to progress towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I encourage more people to engage with this article? I've been pretty on the ball here and responded to changes requested? Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

A marker for now. I'll be along shortly for a review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a decent article - nothing here that would stop it being an FA as far as I am concerned. I think you've done well in explaining the technical side in most places (I know nothing about cycling except that it's a damned uncomfortable for of transportation, but I still managed to understand it).Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

Hello! Some initial comments after a read-through (disclaimer: I have no real knowledge of cycling)!

  • The early breakaway was caught in the closing kilometres, with the stage win determined by a bunch sprint. - I agree with Gog the Mild above in that there are several cases where I can guess at the meanings of terms but am not certain of them. Both "breakaway" and "bunch sprint" are not perfectly clear to me. "Bunch sprint" could use a link to the glossary and both could use a very brief explanation.
  • On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton - Suggest changing to (and linking) Col du Petit Ballon, or Petit Ballon if the sentence is referring to the mountain itself instead of the pass.
  • A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel - Suggest linking to Col du Platzerwasel.
  • Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace. - Suggest linking to Col du Ballon d'Alsace.
  • van Vleuten suffered a mechanical - Gog the Mild is correct above in that I wasn't quite sure what "a mechanical" referred to until I saw the link to it. I think this is worth instead calling "an issue with her bike", or even specifying what the issue was if there's coverage of it.
  • ...Women's WorldTour races have a maximum stage length of 160 kilometres ... the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar... - Are these two instances of "WorldTour" referring to the UCI Women's World Tour? If so, is there a reason they are spelled differently?

Overall, I think my impressions are very close to that of Gog. It's a very good article and it's close to fulfilling FAC criteria! But it does read like an aficionado of the sport wrote it and so it suffers from a little bit of jargon. — Penitentes (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much – I've made most of these amendments.
  • Clarified wording in a few spots and rephrased.
  • Added links to climbs. Sources refer to them as Ballon d'Alsace and Petit Ballon (not Col), so I've left that wording w while linking them. Interestingly, I had considered adding links to them previously – but considered it to be MOS:OVERLINK !
  • Mechanical – sources usually specify what the issue is (i.e. a broken part of the bike, a puncture etc) but in this case, I can't find what the issue was – even in a specific article about the incident! I've amended to "an issue with her bike" as suggested.
  • Sources (and the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale) have WorldTour without a space, so I've followed their example. Unsure why the wikipedia article name differs!
Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good changes all! Assuming the source concerns below (incl. spotchecks) get addressed I will be a support. — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • CyclingWeekly is a work title and should be italicized, and be consistent in whether it's presented as CyclingWeekly or cyclingweekly.com. Ditto letourfemmes.fr vs Tour de France Femmes, Cycling News vs cyclingnews.com... check throughout
  • Be consistent in whether "The" is included for publication titles that use it, and if so whether it is capitalized
  • Be consistent in whether you include ISSN - for example FNs 60 and 75 are to the same publication but only one includes it
    • Fixed.
  • FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN16, check throughout
    • Fixed and checked.
  • FN6 is dead
    • No thanks to the Washington Post not allowing archiving of their old posts! Found a fixed link, and changed citation to News.
  • Be consistent in whether author names are presented first or last name first
    • One author name replaced with first/last.
  • FNs 12 and 13 are the same work. Dittos FNs 31 and 32 - check throughout
    • In both cases, one citation is supporting a quote, and the other citation is supporting a wider sentence/paragraph. Believe this is correct approach?
  • Because I specifically want to include a quote in the citation? The quote then does not support the wider sentence/paragraph, so I've used the same source for a different citation. Another example would be FN71 and FN77 - same source, two separate quotes to support two separate bits. Turini2 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn14: title doesn't match current source and archive link is non-functional
    • Fixed
  • FN16 title also doesn't match source - check throughout
    • I blame the autofill visual editor citations! Also fixed.
These have all been checked and fixed. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there and oppose for the moment - lots of cleaning up needed for consistency and functionality of citations. Happy to revisit once that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and fixes made - I believe that's everything checked and resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Resolved! Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote marks nested within quote marks should use single quotes
  • Wikilinking is still inconsistent - eg you've got Cycling Weekly linked in FN 33 but not 5 or 34. You can do all, none, or first, but not random.

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

As today the 2024 race kicks off, I will try to find time to review. My comments for the lead:

  • avec Zwift --> this only appears in the lead. Should also be in the body somewhere. With source.
  • took place from 24 to 31 July 2022 --> that 2022 is redundant. Already used at the start of the sentence
  • the first sentence should say that it was a cycling race for female professionals
  • I don't get what footnote a adds. Is this somehow controversial?
  • media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders --> why an Oxford comma after coverage, but not after teams?
  • polka-dot jersey or polka dot jersey?
  • so we have yellow jersey and GC link to the same place, which I think is fine, but then we should link polka dot and green and white jerseys as well. But then we end up with a sea of blue links. This would argue for not linking the yellow jersey.
  • which brings me to the jerseys: the white one is explained well, but the others not very well. Queen of the mountain needs to be explained, points classification needs to be explained, and the general classification is such a misleading name (suggests some sort of average) that it needs to mention fastests time.

More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority have been resolved.
  • in terms of the footnote, there were previous "women's Tour de France" races - called things like Tour de France Féminin. The footnote clarifies that the race is the first of the Tour de France Femmes races, as well as responding to a talk page comment. The first women's Tour de France took place in 1955, for example!
  • In terms of the jerseys, it's already substantially more detailed than featured article 2012 Tour de France - and I don't want the lead to become longer, given previous feedback. Expanded a little in the race overview.
Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that FA 2012 Tour de France as a reference. That helps.

  • I don't think a footnote is the right mechanism for explaining previous versions. This should be more prominent. I would take the first paragraph from Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, condense it a bit, and place it as the 2nd sentence. And then reposition the "followed years of campaigning" to connect it.
    • Rewritten
  • held primarily in France, first held --> that duplication of held is not particularly elegant
    • Fixed
  • Since the mid-1980s --> I don't get why the ones prior to the 1980s are not mentioned
  • using the Tour de France Féminin name from 1984 to 1989 --> other names should be listed as well
    • Section rewritten
  • sexism and trademark issues --> sexism, and trademark issues
    • Fixed
  • pushing for a women's Tour de France --> pushing for a revival of the women's Tour de France. Or a fully equivalent women's TdF. Or something distinguishable
    • Fixed
  • The one-day stage race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[12] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place in a variety of locations across France in conjunction with the men's race --> this confused me. The "would take place" suggests to me that that was the plan, but actually did not happen. Then the location: first it is Paris and then it's all over France. Then the timing: first it is prior to final stage, then it is in conjunction.
    • Fixed
  • 'sharing the stage' --> why the ' and not "? Or no quotes at all?
    • Fixed
  • welcoming the live TV coverage and visibility of taking place alongside the men's race --> not sure about visibility of taking place. Let's assume it was held in January. It would still be visible.
    • Disagree - backed up by FN13, moved to clarify
  • However, La Course was criticised --> by whom? and when, given that initially there was praise
    • Added, some criticism was straight away - but three sources in the article are 2018 and 2021
  • Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve --> when?
    • There are sources for this from 2015 onwards (the two in the article are 2018 and 2021)
  • mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> but no one seemed to have argued for that, so that would not be pushing back
    • That was the original push from Le Tour Entier, but I haven't included their detail of exactly what they wanted, too much detail.
  • Dutch rider Anna van der Breggen stating --> that's 3 times the verb to state in short succession
  • Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> sorry, 4
    • I clearly am afraid of using synonyms! Have amended throughout. Some are still there because they work best!
  • "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France" --> add comma: "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France",
    • Fixed
  • Zwift had signed a four-year agreement to sponsor the race --> what is missing here is the bit about the official name
  • Fixed
  • The 24 teams which participated in the race[25] were --> why put the ref 25 mid-sentence?
    • Fixed
  • selected by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organisers of the Tour --> we already knew that, so just selected by ASO
    • Fixed
  • selected by --> is anything known about the selection process? Highest bidder?
    • nope, literally selected by the organisers!
  • covering a total of 1,033 kilometres --> should this not also be mentioned in the lead? The FA 2012 Tour de France does have distance in the lead
    • Added
  • on the same day as the final stage of the men's tour --> before or after the men's finish? Ah I see that's mentioned later. I would put that here
    • Disagree, I feel the wording works better
  • Vosges mountains (including the longest, stage 5), and a summit finish on stage 8 at La Super Planche des Belles Filles in the Vosges --> this isn't working for me. That last Vosges thre me, because I thought "stages in the Vosges mountains" already had dealt with that
    • Fixed
  • including the longest --> repetition including
    • Fixed
  • as men's Tour de France --> as the men's Tour de France
    • Fixed
  • as the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men --> may I suggest to remove this bit and instead add something like "whereas the maxima for men are x km and y days" after the paragraph's 1st sentence
    • It's really complicated to explain... the summary of "the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men" is the simplest way of doing it IMO.
  • In the stage characteristics table it is odd to show the riders' nationality instead of their teams. This race is really about team tactics, not like the Olympics. I was surprised by this omission, as the lead rightfully listed the team name of the jersey winners rather than their nationality. But I see that 2012 Tour de France does the same. Was it discussed there? Or also overlooked?
    • It's what all the cycling race articles do, so I'm following their practice!
  • Paris: Tour Eiffel --> Paris: Eiffel Tower
    • The official name of the stage was Tour Eiffel, so no change.
  • tipped for the points classification --> tipped for winning the points classification
    • Fixed
  • The Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> not sure if the classification is the thing being awarded
    • Tweaked
  • The Queen --> perhaps add something like "similar to King of the Mountains in the men's race"
    • Added
  • referencing --> this word choice looks a bit odd to me
    • Fixed
  • was very positive --> given that there was criticism, I would drop the very
    • Fixed
  • outsprinted Marianne Vos --> link Marianne Vos
    • Fixed
  • In the final, Vos --> not sure if it is obvious to non-cycling fans what the final is. I would just avoid and simply use "at the finish"
    • Fixed
  • to take the yellow and green jerseys --> was this straight on time or was there any bonus time involved?
    • yes time bonuses and also clarifies
  • Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> remove (QoM) as this abbreviation was already given. One could question the need for QoM at all, if it is not used
    • shortened
  • her to lose a minute and a half --> just to be clear, I'd say finish a minute and a half after the winner. Or whatever the difference
    • Have changed to "lose time" otherwise it's duplicate text
  • was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar --> was the longest of the 2022 Women's WorldTour calendar
    • fixed
  • due to bonuses --> is there no place to link to, explaining this?
    • Unfortunately not, but I've added a little bit above
  • On the descent of the penultimate climb, a small group including Wiebes and Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx) crashed on the descent, --> that's descent twice
    • Fixes
  • with everyone involved finishing the stage --> but everyone involved ultimately finished the stage
    • Fixed
  • A group of fourteen riders that --> who instead of that?
    • Fixed
  • had gained time ahead of the peloton in a breakaway --> "who had been ahead of the peloton"
    • Half fixed, leaving breakaway pipe
  • by a large group of riders in a bunch sprint --> this makes me think earlier sprints were not bunch sprints. Is that true? If not, the term should be introduced earlier.
    • Fixed
  • for the stage win as the race headed towards the mountains --> by adding "as the race headed towards the mountains" a non-informed reader may wrongly infer that there are some bonuses given to the winner of the last race prior to the mountains
    • Removed
  • five category 1 climbs --> is 1 for easy or hard?
    • Added wording to route
  • eventual winner of the general classification (GC) --> GC was already introduced and used
    • Fixed
  • 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) of vertical climbing --> isn't climbing by definition vertical?
    • Fair point!
  • with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, --> for context it would be good to give the length of this stage somewhere
    • Added
  • ensuring that the yellow jersey --> not necessarily. She could have caught up
    • Rephrased
  • following her crash on stage 6 --> Given the position of this in the paragraph, I assume she started but then gave up. Perhaps better to provide some description of causality.
    • rephrased
  • achieved an impressive stage win --> better to use quotes here, otherwise find more neutral words
    • rephrased
  • Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM --> this is puzzling: how come van Vleuten did not become QoM, as she seemed to get to the tops first?
  • while Katarzyna Niewiadoma --> while Niewiadoma
    • Fixed
  • rounded out the podium --> not sure the tone is right here, sounds more something a fanzine would write
    • Fixed
  • Vos continued to hold the green jersey --> a little help for the reader would be good, something like "as only x points were awarded in this stage"
    • rephrased
  • Stage 8 was the second mountain stage --> given that for stage 7 we got the number of meters of climbing, why not here as well?
  • stage of the Tour, --> now we have Tour, but earlier we had tour
    • Fixed
  • The final climb to La Super Planche des Belles Filles was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long with an average gradient of 8.7 percent, with the final --> final duplication
    • Fixed
  • With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, --> again, for context, how long was this stage?
    • Fixed
  • Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace --> this tells the reader little about how long she was behind for, so some km reference would be good
    • Fixed
  • attacked from the peloton --> I have never heard this expression
    • Rephrased
  • She passed the remnants of the breakaway --> which breakaway? this was never mentioned
    • have added

I'll check the last bit as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwininlondon - I'll take a look at this today, there are some great clarifying points in here thank you. I will note that some of this detail was previously cut from the article for being too much detail for summary style! Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here is the last batch.

  • Why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? What that FA does well in Classification leadership and minor prizes is lots of explaining all the classifications and extra info about price money. That FA does nt have reception info, but here I would put that in its own section
    • Have added this - thank goodness the relevant regulations are still available - there are no secondary source for this.
  • In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> is there any kind of rule you're applying when you use GC and when general classification?
    • Just that it's a conclusion - so I've just the full wording.
  • In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> feels repetitive to keep saying which team she is in
    • Again, it's because it's the overall conclusion of the race, so it could be a bit that people jump to reading
  • In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) won the Tour de France Femmes --> can you really say it like that? How about: In the final general classification, van Vleuten came first
  • advantage over Vollering (SD Worx) --> advantage over Vollering
    • As above
  • of almost four minutes while Niewiadoma was third at more than six and a half minutes down --> of almost four minutes, and of more than six and a half minutes over third-placed Niewiadoma
    • Fixed
  • Vollering won the mountains classification --> this seems to me the best place to use Queen of the Mountains phrase
    • Fixed
  • while Vos (Team Jumbo–Visma) won --> while Vos won
    • As above
  • and the super-combativity award --> should be explained on what basis
    • Added
  • won the young rider classification --> 2 issues here: 1) the lead explains how this works, so this should be explained here as well 2) the lead mentions the white jersey, so that should be mentioned here as well
    • Added
  • Her rival Vollering considered that they --> who is they referring to?
    • They'd is better?
  • fourth-place overall Juliette Labous --> fourth-placed Juliette Labous ?
    • fixed
  • Cycling Weekly stating --> stating repetition
    • Fixed
  • and L'Équipe stating --> and again
    • Fixed
  • Race director Marion Rousse stated
    • I left this one :)
  • with the 2024 edition of the race set to visit the Alps --> on Sunday this likely will have to go pas tense :)
    • changed
  • the column headers in the table Classification leadership by stage should all be links, just like the 2012 FA
    • Added
  • The 2012 FA has links for terms in the Legend table
    • Added
  • Final general classification (11–109) table width is different from 1-10. Looks broken
    • It's because of the longer team names in the 11-109 table, have amended table size so this (and the below text wrapping is fixed)
  • + 1 h 00 min 49" --> + 1 h 00 min 49 s
    • Fixed
  • + 1 h 01 min 01 s --> for me, from here on the text in each row starts wrapping. This could easily be fixed
    • As above
  • in the young rider table, number 8 has a slower time than number 9?
    • Wrong way round! Fixed
  • This is just under half the audience of the men's tour --> I would use past tense and give the 2022 year
    • Fixed
  • The 2012 FA has a section UCI World Tour rankings: does this not exist for the women?
    • It does... but the data and sourcing on it is incredibly poor/hard to find. The best I've done in the past is reference who the new leader of the UCI Women's WorldTour is!

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments and fixes made, will come back to this later Turini2 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon believe these are all resolved, or have explanations why I disagree! Turini2 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I had another look at the lead. Found the following:

  • make a redirect for 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift
  • (officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) --> (officially 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift)
  • Various cycling races have been held as an equivalent to the Tour de France for women ... by the public, media, teams, and riders. --> May I suggest a bit tighter paragraph: Starting in 1955, various cycling races for women have been held similar to the Tour de France for men, under different names (for example, Tour de France Féminin, Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, La Course by Le Tour de France). Many of these were one-day races, unlike the three-weeks races for the men. The first edition of Tour de France Femmes followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France. The race drew large crowds, had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams, and riders. And then add the 3 week men's race to the Background section + source.
  • (French: maillot jaune) --> I don't see the value of adding this. It is never used again. And no other term is given in French. I would remove it.
  • who put in a consistent performance during the first six stages and finished in the top five on both mountain stages --> this is not menioned in the body of the article
  • following consistent stage finishes --> Not quite right: if she had been consistently last, she would not have gained many points. Plus where is this mentioned in the body of the article?
  • Canyon–SRAM won the team classification --> Canyon–SRAM should not be linked, was already linked

I will have a 2nd run through the body as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most changes made, with some tweaks to lead wording.
I haven't redirected the race + sponsor name, I didn't think that was the done thing for sporting events - e.g. FA 2008 Japanese Grand Prix does not have a 2008 Formula 1 Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix redirect, FA 2017 EFL Trophy final isn't 2017 Checkatrade Trophy final etc. Turini2 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I read WP:REDIR correctly, there really should be a redirect for this more specific form of the name. Looks like an oversight at the other FAs to me. But I'm happy to let this go. No users will be hurt.
  • and to shorter duration --> to does not look right to me
  • Fixed
  • It still looks wrong to me: now it reads as "under a shorter duration" which I have never heard of
  • Rephrased, is that better?
  • Noted, deleted as per below
  • she'd maintained throughout the race --> this is still not what the body says. Everything in the lead should come from the body. I don't think you need to say this; there is no info in the lead about how number 1 and 2 did throughout the race either.
  • Fixed
  • following consistent stage finishes --> this is still not what the body says: nothing about Vos in stage 3 or 4. I would rephrase
  • Disagree, "after finishing in the top five on the first six stages, with wins on stages 2 and 6" later on in the article - that counts as consistent in my books!
  • We should just try to avoid any misunderstanding, so simply say "following top five finishes in the first six stages, including two wins"
  • Done!
  • and two stage wins in the early part of the race --> stage 6 is not the early part of the race. Plus I only now notice that the section Early stages goes all the way to 6 out of 8. That does not look right.
  • Struggled how to word this - the mountain stages decided the outcome of the race, so they're separated out as a key part. Initial stages? Early part of the race? "Starting in Paris and heading east" is not a great header either. I've gone with Stages 1 to 6, but thoughts welcome!
  • first taking place in 1903.[2] It takes place --> repetition
  • Fixed
  • From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently --> is this really true? From the text it seems there was no race in 1990 and 1991. Nor in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
  • It's complicated so I've reworded it. At least one equivalent race for women in France was held from 1984 to 2009 - some years had multiple from different organisers, but that's TMI
  • I agree that is TMI, but we cannot say "From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently" if it is only the case until 2009. What we have now is misleading.
  • Rephrased to a "between 1984 and 2009" wording
  • took place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[13] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place --> repetition
  • Fixed
  • with sponsors welcoming --> the previous sentence has the same with ..ing construction, which feels repetitive. Please check the rest as well, as you really seem to favour this construction.
  • Some edits and tweaks made
  • ASO noted that logistical issues mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> ASO noted that they were unable to stage a men's and women's Tour de France simultaneously due to logistical issues
  • Fixed
  • The first edition was be held --> grammar
  • Fixed
  • Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig commenting --see MOS:SAY
  • Fixed
  • A group of fourteen riders --> above you have All 14, so as per MOS:NUM change one
  • Fixed
  • Stages 7 and 8 took place in the Vosges --> unlink Vosges
  • Fixed
  • of climbing including the Grand Ballon --> of climbing, including on the Grand Ballon
  • Fixed
  • ensuring that the yellow jersey would change hands at the end of the day --> still not right. It does not ensure this.
  • Rephrased and moved losing the yellow jersey to later on
  • the second climb of the day --> now I'm confused: There is the first climb, which is unnamed. Then there is the Petit Ballon, which is a mountain, so should be the 2nd. So isn't Col du Platzerwasel the 3rd climb?
  • Rephrased
  • Fixed
  • remnants of the breakaway --> remnants of the breakaway group
  • Fixed
  • As I asked above, why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? It seems odd to have a section called Results and recption, and then another section called Classification leadership. The first paragraph of Results and reception and the content in Classification leadership really belong together. I would follow as much as possible what 2012 TdF is doing, and then add a separate Reception section
  • Partial tweaks made - separating out results and reception. I actually think the prose works better keeping the summary of the final results (and the comments from riders) separate from classification leadership.
  • Last bit I will check later, asap. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • after finishing in the top five on the first six stages --> the reader will infer that this is the reason to win the award, but that is a bit misleading. I would explain that a jury does it based on x y z, like you now have in the section below (which is why I think these 2 sections should merge). But if you do not want to do that, I would leave it out instead of repeating.
  • Reordered and rephreased
  • Her rival Vollering considered that they'd performed --> 2 issues: MOS:CONTRACTION and it is unclear who they is referring to. Is it not simply "she had performed"? Isn't she just talking about herself?
  • Changed - I think I had "Her rival Vollering considered that she had performed well throughout the race" before, but wanted to make clear it was Vollering talking about herself!
  • Just say "Vollering" instead of "Her rival Vollering"
  • Done!
  • Worldwide media coverage praised the event,[74][75] with CNN calling the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented --> grammatical issue here, which I would fix this way: Worldwide media coverage praised the event.[74][75] CNN called the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented
  • Fixed
  • 2024 edition of the race visited the Alps --> 2024 edition visited the Alps
  • Fixed
  • The climbs were categorised as fourth-, third-, second- or first-category --> earlier you use a different notation: category 4. Consistency is better
  • Fixed
  • with the more difficult climbs rated lower. --> just be explicit: category 4 being the easiest and category 1 the hardest.
  • Fixed
  • I would also say something here about with hors catégorie, which was introduced already in the route section, even though there isn't one. This detailed section has all the rules, so might as well add.
  • Added
  • Yes, but now there is duplication: it was already linked and translated, so not needed again. Plus what I wanted to see is how many points, so should come after the category 1.
  • Duplication removed. As there are no hors-categorie climbs, the source has no information about how many points would be available. (It varies race to race)
  • Fourth-category awarded 2 riders, the first with 2 points; with 1 point; third-category awarded 3 riders, the first with 3 points; second-category awarded 4 riders, the first with 5 points; and first-category awarded 6 riders, the first with 10 points. -->MOS:NUM defifintely change the numbers for the riders. Plus there is an error in first bit. I would leave the points numbers. So Category 4 awarded two riders, the first with 2 points, and the second with 1 point; category 3 awarded three riders, the first with 3 points; category 2 awarded four riders, the first with 5 points; and category 1 awarded six riders, the first with 10 points.
  • Fixed
  • was restricted to riders who under the age of 23 --> apart from the fact this is not grammatical, the source says nées depuis le 1er janvier 2000, and this is how the 2012 FA avoids ambiguity as well.
  • Ah, but other sources say "Coureuses âgées de moins de 23 ans". Have left it with grammar fixed.
  • what are these other sources? Should you not add those? Right now you have a claim that is not backed up by the source. BTW isn't this source providing the official rules?
  • Added source to support.
  • The leader wore a white and violet jersey --> In the lead and elsewhere it is pure white.
  • That's me blindly copying the detailed source, when every secondary source just calls it white! Amended.
  • yellow number bibs on the back of their jerseys.[88] --> no yellow helmets?
  • Source doesn't mention it!
  • At the conclusion of the Tour, the jury awards--> why present tense? everything was past tense
  • + 1 h 00 min 49 s --> the issue with s was fixed here but now there is a new formatting problem: it sticks out
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • France 3, RTVE and SBS --> France 3, RTVE, and SBS
  • Fixed
  • In France, France 3 --> delink
  • Fixed

@Turini2: Just pinging you in case you missed my last batch of comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon I had, in the chaos of getting the 2024 edition to ITN! I'll work on this today. Turini2 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vast majority done, a few more need to be resolved with a fresh pair of morning eyes. :) Turini2 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon hello, all of these have been actioned or commented on! Turini2 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few issues left. See nested comments above. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon edits made! Turini2 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • 51 52 53 together cover the whole paragraph. This was quite an effort to check. I could not see any of these 3 source supporting the word "rolling". I did see "The succession of short, sharp climbs through the hills", which to me as a non-cyclist doesn't sound like rolling. Cycling Weekly called it "punchy terrain".
  • None of the 3 sources mentioned the word "loop"
  • 53 supports the loop and the rolling terrain - the profile shows the profile of the course and the map tab shows the route looping into Epernay.
  • "seven riders contending for the general classification broke away from the peloton" --> could not find support for this in any of the 3
  • replaced seven with several to avoid adding another source here to support one word (I think the seven was from Cycling News, originally).
  • 55 and 56: With around 23 kilometres (14 mi) remaining --> 55 says 25km, 56 says 20km
  • Amended to 25 - crosschecked with Cycling News
  • 57 58: Continuing east across France --> could not see this in these 2 sources
  • this is clear from the overall route direction, with a map above and route sources
  • With around 45 kilometres --> Guardian says 50km, Cycling W says 42km
  • And Cycling News says 45 exactly! Does "with around" caveat these numerical discrepancies enough?
  • due to bonuses --> did not see this in 57 or 58
  • Added source to support this
  • 59 60: Stage 6 to Rosheim was a hilly stage --> I happened to notice that source 58 speaks of not 2 but 3 mountain stages: "eve of a trio of mountain stages". 59 calls it a transition stage. But "hilly" I did not see in these 2.
  • Hilly is from citation 1, supported further up in the article in the route section.
  • four categorised climbs and another climb with bonus seconds at the top --> in 59 I could only count 4 and nothing about bonus
  • Added Rouleur source (used above) to confirm
  • of the penultimate climb --> 60 definitely does not indicate which climb, and 59 says "final classification climb, the Route de Mollkirch". Probably needs another source to indicate this is indeed penultimate
  • The Rouleur source added above supports this
  • everyone involved ultimately finished the stage --> could not find support for this in 59 60
  • Added Tissot Timing source to support

I'll stop here. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from Jonesey95

[edit]

I noted this on the talk page before seeing that an FAC was open. Flag use in this article appears to be contrary to MOS. See the talk page for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page, TLDR the article follows the consensus for cycling articles (and has been discussed numerous times). Turini2 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SPORTSFLAG has been edited following the established consensus for cycling/Formula 1/golf etc, and this matter is therefore resolved. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving on David’s behalf as per this as he probably forgot this part. Having been open for more than two months, this is still a long shot from achieving a consensus for promotion. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.

A little bit of a disappointing outcome, given the supports and responses to comments made. I guess I will go again in due course! Thanks all for your help and comments in this process. Turini2 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2022_Tour_de_France_Femmes/archive2&oldid=1244923430"