Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 Tour de France/archive1

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2021 [1].

1985 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 72nd running of the Tour de France, the most prestigious cycle race in the world. It was promoted to Good Article last May. All comments are much appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 02:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest the addition of alt texts on images
Done.
  • Suggest archiving sources.
Will get to that later, Internet Archive is really lag for me at the moment.

Lead

  • Short descriptions must be started with capital letters.
Done (even though it is not yet showing up for me, these short descriptions are always weird).
Done.

Teams

Done.
  • Not familiar with the Tour de France, but why is a person referred to as a "team"? Sounds weird.
can you indicate where this happens? I read the section twice, and could not find what you refer to... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot really understand this point either... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdgeNavidad, it's at "The teams entering the race were". However the bulleted list are only people and not teams, as in "a group of people". GeraldWL 06:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only bulleted list I see there starts with "Renault-Elf", which is a redirect to "Renault (cycling team)". That is not a person, but definitely a team. The same goes for the other seventeen items in that bulleted list. Are you really talking about that list? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-race favourites

  • "had won the 1984 Tour de France" --> "had won the previous Tour de France".
Done.
  • "Panasonic–Raleigh" is linked in the second mention; should be linked in the first mention.
Done.

Route and stages

  • "Summit of the Col du Tourmalet, the highest point of elevation during this year's Tour"-- suggest changing "this year's" to "the 1985", as "this" may sound like "the current year" aka 2021.
Done.
  • Italicizing "en route" is not needed,
Done. Never sure which terms are covered and which aren't.
  • In the table's header, suggest switching positions of ref 38 and 30. Feel free to do this or not, I'm sure it's just my OCD triggered.
Done.

Race overview

  • Suggest making the display text of the second main article as "Stage 12 to Stage 22", as the prefix "1985 Tour de France" has been stated in the first main article.
Done.

I'll have more on this later. Currently writing something for Signpost, so am shifting simultaneously. GeraldWL 15:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Have done most (waiting for the archive links). Looking forward to more comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait! I'll continue with a second round of comments.

  • "Rudy Matthijs (Hitachi–Splendor–Sunair) won the first stage from a bunch sprint"-- what does "bunch sprint" mean? Sorry, not a cycling guy.
Is wikilinking enough? I added one.
  • "Ángel Arroyo, second in the Tour of 1983" ----> "Ángel Arroyo, who won second place in 1983".
Done.
  • "Hinault however was bothered" ----> "Hinault, however, was bothered".
Done.

GeraldWL 06:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done these (I believe, see above). Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- all my concerns addressed. GeraldWL 02:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll get to this in the future... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Why the citation?
In accordance with MOS:LEADCITE, I added that citation since this statement is not repeated anywhere in the article and might be challenged.
  • but time bonuses saw the lead switch to Eric Vanderaerden after stage 1 ===>>> but lost the lead to Eric Vanderaerden after stage 1 because of time bonuses. (as is, it doesn't follow parallelism)
Done.
  • leading to a bronchitis ===>> leading to bronchitis
Done.
  • However, he was able to fight off ===>>> Nonetheless, he was able to fight off (two "However"s)
Done.
  • Clarify that Hinault had a large lead from stage 8 onwards.
Done.
  • For his assistance ===>>> For LeMond's assistance (unclear "his")
Done.
  • The above sentence sounds like it is contradictory with the previous one. Maybe be more specific with what happened with LeMond.
I cannot quite follow which sentence you mean?
Nonetheless, he was able to fight off challenges by teammate LeMond and Roche to win the race overall. For LeMond's assistance, Hinault publicly pledged to support LeMond for overall victory the following year. <<<=== These two sentences. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Reworded.
  • Add the importance of the time trials in one of the first two paragraphs.
Done.
One more comment on that: decisive for its outcome ===>>> instrumental in Hinault's victory. (the grammar is not quite right) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Mhh, I am not quite convinced. If I word it as "in Hinault's victory", that makes it sound that the change was made to specifically disadvantage Hinault (which he might have believed, but was certainly not the whole truth). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

  • Three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew ===>>> Because three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew, the Tour started (I don't like "so" as a transition word)
Done.
  • Each team had 10 cyclists, so the 1985 Tour ===>>> With 10 cyclists on each team, the 1985 Tour
Done.
  • The average age of riders in the race was 26.76 years ===>>> The riders in the race had an average age of 26.76 years (to make "ranging" work in the next clause)
Done.
  • who had won in 1980 <<<=== should be in parentheses
Done.
  • , as it was their fifteenth start in the race ===>>> by each starting in the race for their fifteenth time.
Done.
  • That one sentence could just be the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Done.

Favourites

  • as record winner of the Tour ===>> for the record number of Tour wins.
Done.
  • winning the road world championship ===>>> a win in the road world championship (to keep parallelism with the next clause)
Done.
  • The amount of individual time trials, a total of 159 km (99 mi), ===>>> Either "The number of individual time trials, totaling 159 km (99 mi)," OR "The amount of individual time trials, four stages totaling 159 km (99 mi)," OR "The length of the individual time trials, totaling 159 km (99 mi),"
Done.

Route

  • started in Brittany ===>>> started in Brittany in northwest France
Done.
  • Vosges and Jura ===>>> Vosges and Jura mountains
Done.
  • into the Alps ===>>> into the Alps for stages 11 through 13
Done.
  • to the Pyrenees ===>>> to the Pyrenees for stages 17 and 18 (again, check that?)
Reworded "for three high-mountain stages".

Opening stages

  • immediately, by <<<=== you don't need a comma
Done.
  • meaning that he was eliminated from the race before reaching the first stage proper, having missed the time limit ===>>> eliminating him from the race before reaching the first stage proper due to having missed the time limit.
Done.
  • highlighted the stage with a 205 km <<<=== "highlighted" doesn't sound right here
Reworded.
  • jersey, courtesy <<<=== you don't need a comma
Come.
  • now came from ===>>> came from
Done.
  • Manders left him ===>>> leaving him
That would make the sentence wrong, since then it would sound like van Vliet left Manders behind.
  • before the finish, as van Vliet ===>>> before the finish when van Vliet
Done.
  • Kelly and Vanderaerden had battled hard for the victory, with the latter pushing Kelly towards the barriers, who pushed back with his arm. ===>>> During the sprint, Kelly and Vanderaerden pushed against each other, forcing Kelly towards the barriers.
Done.
  • the race lead remained with Andersen. ===>>> while Andersen kept the race lead. (parallelism)
Done.
  • on stage 7 ===>>> into stage 7
Done.

Vosges

  • who had started two minutes ahead of him ===>>> who had started two minutes ahead of him,
Done.
  • proceeded to take another minute out of him ===>>> proceeded to gain another minute on him
Done.
  • was taken to hospital ===>>> was taken to the hospital
Done.
  • into second place <<<=== remove this
Done.

Alps

  • stage 11, with the first leg <<<=== you don't need a comma
Done.
  • he collected the points ===>>> Herrera collected the points
Done.
  • in between teammates ===>> between teammates (unless they were in-between some other teammates, haha)
Done.
  • Hinault driving up to Pelier <<<=== Is "driving" fair here? You mean on the bike, right?
Changed to "riding".
  • Weakened by his attacking riding style <<<=== Do you mean Hinault was unable to attack? (You can't attack on a time trial, right?)
I meant over the previous days, have clarified.

Transition

  • of Fagor ===>> (Fagor)
Done.
  • 15 km (9.3 mi) from the finish. ===>>> With 15 km (9.3 mi) from the finish,
Reworded.

Pyrenees

  • led to a bronchitis ===>>> led to bronchitis
Done.
  • He was therefore on the back foot <<<=== this is too informal. What does "back foot" mean here?
Changed to "weakened".
  • therefore, both cancelled each other out and allowed other riders to catch back up. ===>>> leading to both cancelling each other out and allowing other riders to catch back up.
Done.
  • he had to push his teammate ===>>> LeMond had to push his teammate
Done.

Finals

  • compared to 35.882 km/h ===>>> slightly faster than the 35.882 km/h
Done.

Leadership

  • changed for the 195 Tour <<<=== typo
Done.
  • for 25th placce <<<=== typo
Done. Must have been drunk when I wrote this section (but what does that say about the GA reviewer?)
  • The combination jersey for the combination classification was introduced in 1985 ===>>> The combination jersey for the combination classification was introduced in this year's Tour.
Done.
  • only points were awarded on intermediate sprints ===>>> only awarded points on intermediate sprints
Done.
  • from 3,2, and 1 points for the first three riders across during stages 1 to 5 to 12,8, and 4 points respectively during the last five stages <<<=== fix the two spacing issues
Done.
  • Who wore the green caps when La Vie Claire led both classifications? (Was it no one?)
Unfortunately, this sort of information is borderline impossible to come by. Even van den Akker, who did a tremendous job in collecting this sort of info, does not specify. If this classification was still around today, I would assume the second-placed team would wear them, but to be honest, if you look at the TV footage, even the team who did lead the classification did not wear those caps all the time back then, so maybe they didn't even bother... it's easier to enforce nowadays with helmets being compulsory.
Even stronger: Van den Akker explicitly says he does not know: Groene en gele petjes (green and yellow caps). --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: I guess there is a "not" missing in your sentence? Since he clearly states that he doesn't know either. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good guess, fixed it. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The split stages ===>>> The split stage 18
Done.
  • and the idea was scrapped the following year. ===>>> . The idea was scrapped the following year.
Done.
  • 120,000 Francs ===>>> 120,000 francs
Done.
  • Greg LeMond wore the technicolor jersey. <<<=== This isn't explained. Which one is the technicolor jersey? (It should be mentioned as the jersey for the combination classification above.) This also doesn't seem right? Why would this happen on Stage 21? What about the other stages where Kelly held two jerseys?
I have removed this altogether, since you are right, this should be noted for all the stages, but I cannot find the exact information on who wore the jerseys each day in place of somebody else. I guess somebody added this line because they saw LeMond in the jersey on the TV footage...
All (?) stages where somebody wore a jersey in place of somebody else are listed here. Not sure if this should be added, though, it is more a curiosity.
I'll try to add this information, but van den Akker's validity has been called into question in the source review, so we might have to wait how that turns out... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • His first Tour victory the following year did not come to LeMond as easily ===>>> LeMond's first Tour victory the following year did not come as easily
Done.
  • too easy, and made <<<=== you don't need a comma
Done.

Doping

  • Okay.

Overall

  • No major issues.
  • The lead is one of the only places I suggested adding content. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Just checking to see if you have addressed all of Sportsfan77777's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Now I have. @Sportsfan77777: I have adressed all points above, some mind need your eyes again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, but also see the two added comments on the lead. Also, I'd push for "22 stages and a prologue" (what you had originally) instead of "a prologue and 22 stages" as suggested below. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bernard_Hinault_(1982).jpg: don't see the given licensing at the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The license is given in the original image here, which links to here, where the Creative Commons licence is under "Auteursrechthebbende". Why the cropped image has CC 3.0 instead of CC 1.0 of the original, I do not know. I am not an expert on those licences unfortunately, so I am not sure if there is anything wrong with that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The larger issue is the source image has different licensing conditions (CC0) than the image here (CC BY-SA). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yeah, that's what I meant, but I am unsure what one can do about it? Can I just change the licence in the cropped image? Or do I have to use the original? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a specific reason why the cropped image is different, then yes, you can change it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Have changed the licence, I hope it's OK now? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I have given my support to this article. One of the many unfortunate nominations that did not manage to attract as much editors. It's a quality article, so I hope more editors look through this. GeraldWL 02:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerald Waldo Luis. I'll add it to Urgents and see if that stirs up any interest. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I have also given support conditional to the sources being verified (I couldn't work out if they already have or not). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

  • The final standings legend table is missing a caption and row scopes, and the table in the aftermath section is missing column scopes a caption. Heartfox (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Well, for the legend table, have moved the header into the caption, however, I don't really know where to put the scopes, since the table does not really have any rows and columns? For the table in the aftermath section, have added col scopes and a caption. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The jerseys may need to be moved into one column so there can be clear headers. Heartfox (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Have used headers to include the col scopes. Hope this is sufficient? I am sorry for being a bit of an idiot here, tables are my least favourite part of Wikipedia... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5[edit]

Mostly taking the sources given on good faith as I read through this. Obviously if they haven't already been reviewed by somebody then they would need to be.

  • The infobox is quite wide and sandwiches text in the lead awkwardly on my screen. I don't know how much can be done about this or what standards exist regarding related articles, but it is something to consider.
It looks OK on my computer and to be honest, I have no idea how I would change it...
  • Is noting a cyclist's team in brackets in prose a standard when writing about road cycling? It took me a couple of moments to realise that this was the significance of the terms in brackets after the competitors names, and to someone who doesn't know that road cycling is a team sport it could prove difficult to parse.
So far, this has been standard in all cycling articles I've seen (at least the higher quality ones).
Personally I would suggest using the phrasing "Rider Cyclistsson (riding for the Organisation McOrganisationface team)" for the first rider who is mentioned and then just sticking to "Cyclist McRider (Operation Society)" for all the others in order to get a balance between clarity and conciseness. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: Done.
  • The lead mentions that there were "22 stages and a prologue"; would it make more sense to say "a prologue and 22 stages" since the prologue came first?
Done.
  • Remaining with the lead and still regarding the prologue, it may be worthwhile to provide some brief indication of the significance of the prologue relative to the other stages in the lead. A link to the individual time trial article from the word prologue would likely suffice.
Done.
  • Is there a reason why "Fabio Parra (Varta–Café de Colombia–Mavic) was the best rider who rode for the first time" is the exact wording used or could something more concise like "the best debutant" or "the best rookie" be used?
Done.
  • This source: "Record-aantal ploegen in Tour" Koninklijke Bibliotheek Nieuwsblad van het Noorden (15 June 1985) page 23" seems to go to a dead link.
I will have to come back to this, apparently Kranter has removed the paper from their library. Shame.
@HumanBodyPiloter5: OK, so I have scratched that statement alltogether since I found a newspaper article from the same date (15 June 1985) were the 18 teams were already announced, so that was a bit misguided anyway. I've also therefore scratched the part about the three Italian teams.
  • I assume that the part saying "Since three Italian teams (Gis Gelati, Alpilatte–Olmo–Cierre, and Malvor–Bottecchia–Vaporella) withdrew" is referring to three teams mentioned in the preceeding source which seems to be a dead link. Is there a particular significance to these teams being Italian relating to their withdrawal or is it just a coincidence?
See above.
  • Is "which would draw him level with Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx for the record number of Tour wins" referencing Tour de France wins or Grand Tour wins?
Clarified.
  • How does Philippa York prefer to be referred to in the past tense? If she hasn't said that she prefers to be refered to under her former public-facing identity in the past tense I would use her current identity.
I have so far not found an indication over how she wants to be spoken of when talking about the time when she was known as Millar. My reasoning was that for people familiar with cyling in the 80s, they might not be aware of her transition, so I have included the former name to avoid confusion and added the note to make it clear. I guess there can be different views on this, but since the sources on the topic all refer to her as "Robert Millar", I would argue that for her in the 80s, that is the WP:COMMONNAME.
  • "Ángel Arroyo ... abandoned"?
Yes?
I would recommend rephrasing this to say that Arroyo "abandoned the stage" or "abandoned the tour" for clarity. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
  • Does the team time trial have any influence on the individual classifications?
  • Were Kelly and Vanderaerden relegated to the back of the field for the stage results or in the overall classification?
Just the actual field. Not even the stage result in general, but the field that they were in when they crossed the line. Whoever arrived later, seperate from the main pack, was still behind them.
That would make far more sense as a penalty. I would suggest changing the wording to say "their group" rather than "field" as the latter term is suggestive of the phrase "(x number) of teams fielded an entry", hence the confusion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • I understand that the section titled "Vosges and Jura" is referring to the mountain ranges which were mentioned earlier in the article, and that presumably these stages took place in those regions, but reading through the article this heading stuck out as a little vague in its subject matter relative to the prose it contains.
The reason why I chose those quite generic descriptions was because I wanted to avoid editorializing, which basically every header containing the actual events in the race would mean... at least that is how I feel like.
  • The footnote explains about how Dietrich Thurau believed that Raymond Trine held a grudge against him, and while most of the information contained within that footnote is better suited to an explanatory footnote than the main prose, I think a few words mentioning that there was some sort of existing rancour may be suitable in the main prose.
Since the other altercations between the two are not strictly relevant to the 1985 Tour, I would prefer to leave them in the footnote.
  • A brief explanation or a suitable link explaining what a "categorised climb" is at first mention would probably be a good idea.
Will get back to this when rearranging the classifications section.
  • Is "led to a bronchitis" the normal wording? I'm no medical expert so I don't want to comment too much about this sort of thing.
Doing a quick Google search "leading to [illness]" seems quite common in English?
  • Is there a reason Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx have their full names used twice in the main body?
Done.
  • The explanation of the different classifications comes quite late in the article. I haven't found this to be a problem, but someone with no background knowledge may find it a little harder to parse. Not a particularly serious issue though, as the table of contents will presumably help anyone who's truly stuck.
Will be adressed. See comments by TRM. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a few small concerns raised above, I would support this article for featured article status, provided all of the citations have been/will be verified appropriately by someone with the means or the time. A very high quality read for the most part.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies, more to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the classifications section, which will need a complete new look considering the comments raised below, I think I have adressed everything from your side :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry I have only gotten back now. Good luck with the rest of the review! Things are looking good! HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanBodyPiloter5, are you feeling able to support or oppose this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my position has changed from before. I will support the nomination unless it is shown that the article's contents cannot be verified from the sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A note, you seem to have missed the accessibility review further up in the page
    • If this is done than a caption can be added to the Aftermath table and ref 138 could be moved next to it like the other tables
Done.
  • Wondering if it's possible to include the information cited in the first sentence in the body text so the ref can be removed
Hmm, it doesn't really fit in the article body. Doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me, all TdF FAs so far have the same format, I believe, with that statement in the lead only. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, just thought I'd check
Formatting

Bibliography

  • Why sometimes include the country as location and sometimes not? Needs to be consistent
Done.

References

  • Refs 4, 38, 74 missing |trans-title= that the others have
There were a couple of those, I think I have done all now.
  • ref 35 missing retrieval date
Done.
  • I'm confused by your use of retrieval dates, you're inconsistent with including them for refs via Delpher (e.g. ref 29 vs ref 66) and inconsistent with refs via Newspapers.com. (e.g. ref 62 vs 58). Either always include them or don't at all, just needs to be consistent—I would think it's better to include though
Reliability
  • What makes van den Akker, Pieter a high-quality reliable source if it's self-published? How is there credibility or oversight here?
(Not the nominator): I asked the Tour-taskforce for input on why Van den Akker (and McGann, publisher mentioned on WP:SPSLIST) are reliable. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 and EdgeNavidad: In the end, the oversight comes from me and other editors who decide to use it as a source and check the contents. I, being quite knowledgable myself in the field of road cycling, if I dare say so, have found only minor errors in van den Akker's work (a lot less I might add than in books by highly-rated journalists!). And on top of that, I was able to write an email to Mr. van den Akker and he has promised to remove them and add some more information that I provided (with sources) to subsequent editions. Also, van den Akker does give a whole list of sources which he uses for the information he gathers. I would find it a travesty if his book should be excluded as a reliable source simply because he self-published it. That does not make a source unreliable. It might make it questionable, but that question can be answered by taking a thorough look at the source. If he were to be removed from this and all other Tour de France articles, a lot of information would be a lot harder to come by, since we would go through the years-long process that Mr van den Akker has, in great detail and thoroughness, done for us already. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you on this—asking another person who regularly does source reviews. Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's not looking good for the van der Akker source. At FAC the sourcing standards are very high (see 1c. at WP:FACRITERIA), more so than WP:GAN and WP:FLC; the self publish part by a non-subject matter author is almost certainly a no-go. I discussed this with a user who also does source reviews at FAC, she recommends seeing if van der Akker has any publications in Dutch that could prove he is a Subject-matter expert, otherwise, the source will have to be replaced. Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statistical compilation. Van den Akker is a subject-matter expert by virtue of how they have compiled the material, which they have explained in detail. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How they compiled the material alone doesn't qualify them as a subject-matter expert under WP:SELFPUB. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 and Sportsfan77777: To be perfectly honest, if this source cannot pass, then I am afraid I will abandon this review and the article will not get promoted. Van den Akker does so much work which is vital to many cycling articles I have dealt with in the past. I had assumed that apart from the strict formal guidelines that Wikipedia has on reliable sources, there would still be leeway for the editors to judge sources on their merit and not just judging a "book by its cover" as they say. I could give you hundreds of examples of books written by journalists and the like, which would have no problem passing the formal requirements for a reliable source, but they prove unreliable in places when you take a closer look. Wikipedia expects me as an editor to catch those mistakes and prevent them from entering the articles. But apparently, I am not allowed to do the opposite and determine that a source is reliable even if it is self-published. I cannot comprehend that and am very unwilling to accept it. One more note: 1989 Tour de France passed its FA review and was even Featured Article of the Day, with van den Akker as a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: If this is him (I am not sure he is, but I can ask him), then he apparently is a sports journalist. If that counts for something... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes CVCCBike.com a high-quality reliable source?
(Not the nominator): I think CVCCBike.com can just be removed as source; it does not give any info that is not given in other sources. When I added this source [in 2011], those other sources did not exist yet.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so (perhaps boldly) Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
  • I don't really understand linking to the google books, almost all of them don't have a preview available or open access
    Aza24, just to comment. I don't think paywall means the GBooks links are not sufficient. Adding a url-access parameter with "subscription" would rest the case. GeraldWL 12:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerald Waldo Luis, afaik google books does not offer subscriptions; sometimes you can purchase the book, most of the time it's just a preview. The latter is why if you go to "Get the book" it's just links to external websites (and not a link to buying it from google, which if available would surely be the first option!). Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24, if there's a preview I'd just let it be as it is, but if you need to purchase it to read that specific page(s), I'd put it on subscription. GeraldWL 03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerald Waldo Luis the point of the subscription template is that it doesn't equate to purchasing individually, otherwise you could link every book to amazon and put a subscription parameter. I usually don't bring up google books as an issue because the preview can supply enough pages to be useful for the reader; however, in this case, most of the goole books don't even have previews, resulting in what seems to be an useless (and miseleading) link for the readers. Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still wondering about this... Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes, I have, sorry, the weekend has been really quite stressful. I hope to get around to resolve all the issues tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. People have been known to overlook this sort of thing! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM[edit]

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of jargon which isn't explained within the article and that is something which needs to be addressed in all articles, so I'll give some examples here, but the whole article needs to be addressed from this perspective. Some initial comments:

  • "as a jammed chain slowed" if it was jammed wouldn't it stop him altogether unless he was just free-wheeling downhill?
I think every person who has ever ridden a bicycle knows that you can unjam a chain with your hand? My guess is that that is what LeMond did, though the source does not specify, since they did not feel the need to.
  • "won the first stage from a bunch sprint"
Well, it is wikilinked. I am not quite sure how to make this clearer unless I get into a tangient and/or move away from WP:COMMONNAME.
  • "behind him on general classification came" what's general classification?
Fixed by moving sections.
  • "won the points classification for a" what's that?
Fixed by moving sections.
  • "relegate both Kelly and Vanderaerden to the back of the field" to the back of the results for that stage? Or for the race as a whole? Or just for the start of the next stage?
Further clarified.
  • "who had mixed himself into the sprint, was raised from fourth to second, giving him a twenty-second time bonus" uncertain of the wording here, and it sounds like he "was raised" by means other than him doing it himself, what were they? And how did he get a bonus? Was it deducted at the end of the stage or was it something else?
Stage time bonuses are explained in the classifications section, which is now ahead of the race report. I do not really understand what is unclear about "was raised"? He finished fourth, two other riders, as is mentioned, were relegated down the order, so then he was second.
  • "for mountain points" what are they?
Fixed by moving sections.
  • "finished the Tour third overall." is that in "general classification" or some other way of scoring?
I actually think that the term "overall" is easier to understand for laypeople than "general classification". It is also a common term.
  • "penalty for drafting behind" what's that?
Have added a explanatory footnote.
  • " to get away from the peloton" what's a peloton?
Surprised the term only turned up once, have reworded.
Is "peloton" not a common English word? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was told to hold station or attack and drop Roche." what does that mean?
Reworded.
  • "several riders tried, but failed, to escape." escape what?
The term is used three times beforehand and I think is easily understandable from context.
  • "reached the finish together." all 145 riders got to the finish line at the same time?
In one group, I think also quite understandable from context.
  • "Giro-Tour double." what's that?
Clarified.
  • I note that some of the comments above can be addressed by placing the explanatory section "Classification leadership and minor prizes" ahead of the race description.

Other comments

  • "to be the main favourite " usually there's one favourite, not a "main" one and some "non-main" ones.
I beg to differ, in most sports, there are often several people considered capable of winning a particular event, and some stand out more than others. Take the coming Formula One season. Max Verstappen can certainly be considered a favourite for the title, but nobody would seriously doubt that Lewis Hamilton is the main favourite.
  • "inflamed Achilles tendon l" why link just "tendon"?
Wasn't aware the Achilles one had a seperate article.
  • " abandoned after " abandoned what? Do you mean they withdrew?
Yes, clarified based on an earlier comment.
  • Stage characteristics and winner table, cumulative distance would be very helpful.
What do you mean? The overall distance of the race is given in the table and in the infobox.
  • "a select group of riders " what made the group "select"?
Reworded.
  • "3:32 minutes" do you mean "3 minutes 32 seconds"?
Of course, perfectly in line with MOS:NUM, I do not really see an issue here?
  • "but he managed to win the stage" loose prose, just "he won the stage" would suffice.
Done.
  • "was won by ... , who won " again, not great prose.
Reworded.
  • "Given the course changes substantially year after year, is the comparison of average speed of any relevance at all?
Removed.
  • Some of the awards are not covered at all in the prose, e.g. the combativity award appears only in the table.
It is mentioned in the classifications section.
  • "Final general classification (11–144)" earlier it said there were 145 riders, I guess one DNF but I'd expect to see that in the table.
145 was the number three stages from the end of the Tour. Someone must have abandoned in between. But all abandoned riders are not in the result table, you can find them in the start list article, which is wikilinked at the beginning.
  • "Czesław Lang" and "L'Equipe" are missing diacritics.
You have a keen eye. Done.
  • "§260,000" no currency I know.
Now you know which symbols are next to one another on a German keyboard.
  • ref 42 has spaced hyphen, MOS:DASH.
I do not really understand the issue. Since I am not a native speaker, those dash rules are a bit of a mystery to me in English. However, what I do know is that those dashes are not hyphens. And when it comes to en dashes, I don't really see a reason given in MOS:DASH why there cannot be spaces in between them? But again, I don't fully comprehend those rules, so please elaborate.
  • ISBNs don't appear to be formatted consistently.
They are now, have made it consistent in order not to make a fuzz about it. I will note though that there is no mention whatsoever in WP:MOS-BIBLIO that ISBN numbers have to be consistent. They are not consistent in how they are given in books (where I copy them out of 1:1).

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I note that some of the comments above can be addressed by placing the explanatory section "Classification leadership and minor prizes" ahead of the race description." This remark alone makes this review already very valuable, regardless of the outcome. I think this applies to all cycling race reports, and doing this improves hundreds, maybe thousands of articles. Thanks for this suggestion. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and EdgeNavidad: I will take a closer look at this later today. Obviously, it's a fair point to say that the classifications should be explained BEFORE they are constantly mentioned in a race overview. However, this section also includes information that clearly constitutes "results", which make more sense BEHIND the race report. I will try to find a solution to make it work, but right now, I don't see a way to do so clearly in my head yet. Also, loads of work then to do for the Cycling Wikiproject in bringing all race overview articles into that new format. But it appears that not just our WikiProject, but several others as well, should pay more attention to FA reviews when they discuss how their articles should be structured (had an entire discussion along the same lines during the FA review for 1982 Formula One season, if I am not mistaken also with you, TRM, right?). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I have replied to all of them and have made several changes, including switching the order of the sections. I hope it is more understandable now. However, in some instances, I am having a hard time in understanding what the problem is in terms of "jargon". But I am probably blinded for it. I've tried to write this as accessible as possible. If you could elaborate more, that would be helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's much improved Zwerg Nase, nice work. I'm sorry that I haven't got back to you sooner and I probably won't have time for the next couple of weeks to take a proper serious look at it so I've struck my oppose in the meantime. Cheers, good luck. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 15 March 2021 (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/1985_Tour_de_France/archive1&oldid=1012549887"