Talk:2022 Tour de France Femmes/GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
  • Copyvio detector
  • Authorship
  • External links
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Grnrchst - I'll take a look at this over the weekend. Your hard work is much appreciated! Turini2 (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have actioned the references point as a start - will do a final run through closer to the end of my edits. Turini2 (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst I think that's done - but I might need to do a final run through tomorrow if that's okay - to make sure I haven't missed anything. Take a look at my comments below :) Turini2 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turini2: Aye you seem to have addressed everything quite nicely! Thanks for taking the time and being so thorough. Let me know when you've done your final run through and I can pass this. :) Nice work. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst I think I'm done here, thanks for your efforts on this! Turini2 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst One final tiny thing - can you change your overall comment at the end of the review? Thanks again for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

  • Is there any reason that the three best UCI continental teams are specified by name, but none of the other teams are? Consider removing for consistency.
  • Replace the dash "–" after continental teams with a colon ":".
  • Maybe move the announcement date of the teams to the beginning? It reads weird to say they were announced after already listing the teams.
  • Copy edit the final sentence. Something like "At the start of the race, there were 144 riders of 25 different nationalities, the largest percentage of whom were Dutch (20% of the peloton)." or something similar.
    • 1 - To show the three teams that were automatically invited, compared to the teams that were invited by the organiser.
    • 2-4 - actioned.Turini2 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Route and stages

  • I think you could just say "eight consecutive days of racing" instead of including the bracketed detail about the lack of a rest day.
  • "(including the longest, stage 5, of 175.6 km (109.1 mi))" I don't think you need to specify the exact length of the stage, given that's already in the table below. Just mentioning it's the longest one is fine.
  • "The route was welcomed [...]" Why? It doesn't say.
  • "The overall length of the event was also met with agreement" Cited source says that there was initial disagreement over the length, but that's not mentioned.
  • It's worth mentioning why the restrictions were criticised as sexist, rather than just saying that they were. Their reasoning that "UCI and ASO still uphold the belief that women cannot complete the same distance as men, and are therefore regulated to shorter distances" is an important detail.
    • 1-2 actioned
    • 3 actioned - slight expansion
    • 4 - My read of that is disappointment that the race isn't three weeks (like the men's race) - and it would be a bit too much info to include.
    • 5 - actioned Turini2 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race overview

Early stages

  • "final stage of the men's Tour" this was already mentioned in the previous section. Remove one of them, in order to cut down on repetition.
  • Try to be consistent about language used. This sentence switches between "maillot jaune" and "yellow jersey" without explicitly linking the two. I'd say either use one or the other (preferably the English language version), or at least clarify that "maillot jaune" is French for "yellow jersey". (I'll note "green jersey" is used uniformly)
  • "rolling terrain" what does this mean?
  • Move the abbreviation "(GC)" up to the first use of "general classification".
  • "QOM classification" Needs to be clarified what this classification is, along with "general" and "points". Also worth linking to Mountains classification in the Tour de France, as per above.
  • No need to mention "chemin blanc", as it's not used elsewhere in the article. "Gravel" is uniformly used.
  • "other mechanicals" Is this maybe supposed to say "other mechanical problems" or "other mechanical issues"?
  • "after a mechanical" Does this mean she was repairing her bike?
  • "having to abandon" Should this say "having to abandon the race" or something similar?
    • 1 - I think both are useful, if that's okay?
    • 2 - This is common in the Tour de France articles, but I'll clarify
    • 3 - uh, undulating - constantly up and down over gentle slopes? There's no wikipedia article, it's just a geographical description.
    • 4 - done
    • 5 - done
    • 6 - more french language creeping in, as in common with this race. Have amended.
    • 7-8 - "Mechanical - An issue with the bike, which can result in rider abandoning the race if the issue isn't fixed. When a rider throws/drops his or her chain or has their seatpost loosen they have suffered 'a mechanical'." Do I need to reference to the glossary of cycling terms?
    • 9 - abandon - another cycling term to "leave the race" Turini2 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think referencing the glossary of cycling terms would be best practice. It's just a way to clarify the specialist language for casual readers. Thanks for looking at this. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain stages

  • "Stages 7 and 8 took place [...]" Source?
  • Maybe link to Glossary of cycling#Q for "queen stage"
  • "an average of 8.7 percent" Is this referring to incline?
  • "Much like stage 7 of the men's edition," Is this necessary to include? I think this detail could be cut.
  • Another use of the term "mechanical", please clarify.
    • 1 - Have used route citation for this.
    • 2 - Have done so.
    • 3 - yes, have actioned.
    • 4 - Useful comparator to the 2022 edition, but I can remove if you think it's better. Turini2 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I don't think the point of comparison is necessary here. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • No notes, all good.

Classification leadership

  • No notes.

Final classification standings

  • No notes.

Broadcasting

  • No notes.

Check list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very well made article that I learnt a lot from and enjoyed reading. Seems like most of the issues I have come from unclear specialist language, but these could be fixed with some minor clarifications or wikilinks.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Some prose issues here and there, mostly involving clarity, but nothing a little minor clarifications and copy-editing can't fix.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A few cases of "However," that should be dealt with.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Some of the references (e.g. [7] The Guardian (14 October 2021), etc.) are incomplete, either not referencing the author's name or the date of publication. Double check that the references are all fully cited.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Everything is cited to reliable sources. Quotes and controversial statements are properly attributed and sourced.
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable for at least half a year.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Every image is original work, mostly licensed through Creative Commons Attribution, but some with share-alike.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Alt text is currently only provided for the image in the infobox. Alt text should be provided for each of the images, to the best of your ability.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Holding for now, mostly due to clarification issues with the prose. Ping me once these have been addressed. Passed.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Tour_de_France_Femmes/GA1&oldid=1159904635"