Talk:2010 Giro d'Italia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sandman888 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Why does it start in the Netherlands?
  • No extra special reason. Amsterdam submitted a proposal to RCS Sport to host the Giro, since they wanted to, and RCS Sport said yes. Washington, DC is currently trying to do likewise, which would obviously be an even more spectacular opening.

Infobox

• Per WP:Mosflag, flags should be adjacent to country name.
  • Where are they not? I'm usually the one who's most adamant about this among my Project.
• Try avoiding the small text
  • Example?
    • Both of above is from the infobox. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not going to edit an infobox without input from the Project. And, I still don't see where flags don't have nation names with them. Unless you want "Ivan Basso (Italy)" strongly ahead of "Ivan Basso (ITA)" and so forth.
• "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and sport articles gladly violate that, emphasising nationality. But that's just one thing, more importantly "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon" and that is the full name. If you don't know what is, I doubt (ITA) makes more sense. Sandman888 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually there's very good reason to give nationality. Stage wins and overall finishes in the Giro contribute points to the UCI World Ranking, which is in turn used to determine how many riders each nation gets at the UCI Road World Championships. And I'm not sure the link to ITA makes the usage totally incomprehensible, but I'll edit it all the same.
  • Ruh oh, it introduces more "small text."
    • Much better, but I don't understand why the rider has to go in between flag and country name, it looks odd. Sandman888 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • {{flagathlete}} is used on over 4,000 pages, indicating widespread satisfaction (if not explicit consensus) to its usage. Even if I could edit it, I wouldn't without significant discussion. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Main

• remove notable
  • Well, the point is that several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders dropped out. Do you suggest an alternate phrasing? I guess "several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders" is the most technically accurate phrasing, but it's not at all concise, and I don't like it.
    • Notable is fine then. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• "was suspended by his national federation in February for his doping incident in the 2009 Giro" -> "a doping incident"
  • Why is vague better than specific? Which part of the first phrase do you intend to have replaced?
    • I just believe that when someone is alleged to have been doped the phrasing is "a doping incident" and not "his doping incident".
      • Ok. I suppose that makes sense. They've thrown the book at him, but he still hasn't been formally stripped of anything from the '09 Giro.
• "skipped the Giro to better focus on the Tour de France, just as he did in 2009" -> "as he also did in the previous season."
  •  Done
• the stats-table is unsourced
  • Which one? I don't see any conspicuously unsourced material.
    • Route and stages table + "Classification leadership" 1st table. Again, avoid small text. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Both tables are simply visual representations of text that appears either here or on the stage recap pages. There's no one conspicuous citation that covers any of them. Do you really want [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] near them? Actually, it wouldn't be sequential numbers, since there are citations for each stage in the "race overview" section. That's the regular text size in the leadership table that's standard on all race articles. I wouldn't be sure how to change it, and what's exactly the problem with it anyway? Sorry if I sound snappish, I really just don't understand.
        • It needs to be verifiable so those that are referenced to the stage recap pages needs to go into the appropiate table. That is a no-brainer. Regarding those who were used in prose, I believe it should be as clear as possible what is sourcing what, so yes, they should be repeated. Regarding text, it is hard to read on other media. Sandman888 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • So would you have opposed the FA nomination of 2009 Giro d'Italia? And, just to be clear, you do want 21 consecutive citations by each table? Or would it be 50 citations for the leadership table (the number of cells in the table)?
  • (outdent) [38] actually pretty well covers the first table. Where should it be placed the second time?
  • You know what, I think I'm actually going to dispute that these need copious sourcing. Only contentious facts must be sourced to the gills each and every single time they appear in an article. There's nothing contentious in either of these tables, and adequate sourcing exists in the article already. I highly, highly doubt anyone would disbelieve or challenge the article because it didn't have notations by visual aids. I passionately hate this assertion that we apparently write articles we don't expect anyone to read (else, why would it be so necessary to source the table? The sources are present when the facts, which the table is meant to illustrate, occur in prose). WP:CITE: "[inline citations] are required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations." (emphasis in original) I contend that the material present in the two tables is not likely to be challenged, particularly (but not only) considering that articles are used as references in the prose of the article that support everything these tables show.

I agree with Sandman888 that these tables should be sourced, but I think one source per table should be enough. If anybody wants to check if the distance reported for stage 12 is correct, they can do it by following the link and checking the distance. In fact, I just did, and the source reports that the distance is 206 km, while the article says 191 km, so this shows the importance of the sourcing. (Somebody should check the rest.) The classification leadership table also needs a source, so I added one, such that Sandman888 (and other readers) can check if Valerio Agnoli was really wearing the white jersey after stages 4 to 6. I checked, he was.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • If stage lengths listed were incorrect (sources change constantly before an event is run, as likely the plans for the stages themselves also change. I thought I had them all correct, but perhaps not), that's a distinct issue. I don't understand why [56], [72], and [66] earlier in the article are so woefully insufficient to back up that Agnoli was wearing the white jersey for three stages (to use your example). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[56], [72] and [66] will probably show (didn't check but I believe you) that Agnoli wore the white jersey. But we show the leadership progress in a table, and if somebody wants to verify the table, do you want them to visit all 84 links to check where the information is? The sources are in the article, but not next to the table, so how would a reader know which source was used for this? I think it is just service to our readers, to add one extra source to this table, so it is clear where the information comes from.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Call it a generalized resistance to change, for better or worse. We've never had to do it this way. It's never been considered necessary, even in articles reviewed to GA and FA status. Do I expect the "reader" (tell me we're not writing and reviewing articles no one is apparently expected to read) to check 84 links to verify one fact? Frankly, yes. Why else do we even have them? If the reader actually read the flipping article, he'd find those citations just fine.

But whatever. It's not that big a deal. I just don't really like it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• images: consider cropping File:Girod'Italia2010Amsterdam.jpg
  • If you referenced some of it by wikilinking to another article, then it isn't good enough. Those refs needs to be in this article as well. Sandman888 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Nothing is sourced only in another article. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant that some text which the table illustrates occurs on the other articles. The minutiae of who wears which jersey when for 21 straight days is really not something that this article can comfortably handle in prose (which is the whole reason why we have the stages articles). I'm also not using the stage articles as a reference - the references are cyclingnews articles. Perhaps too much use of the word "article" Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not my image. I'm not wild about including it in the article at all, but I kept it in since someone added it months ago before my wide-scale revision. I'm not that good at manipulating images anyway.
    • I did it for you. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Coolies.
• % -> percent.
  •  Done

• Sorry I've been slow, but I couldn't find much in the first read and not in the second either. Sandman888 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So are you done then? Not much to address, which is a good thing :) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, yes that is what I meant by the above comment. I've re-read it, I do not know much about the sport tbh, but I can't really find anything to quibble about. Sandman888 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nosleep what did you do in the end? Btw "Points earned in the Giro d'Italia" cannot have a collapsible section as it wont show on mobiles etc. Sandman888 (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was following the example of the FA-class 2009 Giro d'Italia article. Reviewers thought the section was incomplete without all points included, and didn't want it to scroll for ages. I did not *just* do anything, by the way, that section has been that way for months. So can no article ever have a collapsible section, then? You have hands down the strangest GA standards of any reviewer I've ever come across. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite ridiculous Sandman: by what authority do you outlaw a facility whose use is explained, and therefor surely condoned, if not encouraged, in Wikipedia's help section. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandman888, suggest that you read the GA criteria. This article clearly meets them and should be passed straight away. You have no reason to impose your own arbitrary standards. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read MOS:SCROLL which is an official guideline, which the help section is not. Sandman888 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The GA criteria are quite clear. Which bit of "(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" do you not understand? There is no mention there of MOS:SCROLL. If you cannot understand the criteria or refuse to apply them, then please recuse yourself from this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria now updated/clarified per the discussion on WP:GAN talkpage. Since the MoS page is not required, neither is WP:Scroll and this can be passed. Remember to remain civil in future discussions. 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Sandman888 (talk)