Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia

1996 Giro d'Italia has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 23, 2017. (Reviewed version).

1996 Giro d'Italia was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 15, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Cycling: Giro d'Italia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Giro d'Italia task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have made some changes myself, just a little more to take care of:

The whole team classification business is confusing. As far as I understand, the regular team classificaton works like in the Tour de France, counting together the three top finishers on each stage. However, three problems arise here: 1) The fact that it is the three highest finishers of each stage, and not overall is not reflected in the lead. 2) and more importantly: Your source for the classifications is from 2008, so it is possible that this has changed since 1996. A better source should be found. 3) In the classification section, you mention only one team classification.
Route and stages: You should not use the term "individual pursuit" for a time trial, since it can be confused with the actual pursuit competition in track cycling.

Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race overview: The end of the second paragraph needs to be rephrased. After the description of stage 7, you start the sentence with "In what was thought to be...", not making it clear that you speak about the next stage. A sentence later, the sentence ends apruptly after "to give Chiappucci". Give him what?

Wow, I am ashamed of this error. Fixed! Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph later: "attack coming from Zaina and Outschakov. Zaina dropped Gontchenkov" - that does not make sense? Is it Outschakov or Gontchenkov?!

Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I found. Good work so far. I place this on hold. Since I will be on vacation starting wednesday, promotion might take some time until next week, when I am back, so please be patient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Disc Wheel: Thank you for the changes so far. Where do we stand with the first point? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, Disc Wheel hasn't edited on Wikipedia since updating the article on August 17. After three weeks, it may be time to start thinking about closing the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Oh, I did not even notice that. I'll try to sort out the remaining issue myself, otherwise I'll need to fail it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no further work is forthcoming, I will have to fail this article for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1996 Giro d'Italia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review will follow shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I completely forgot about this review... will give it very soon, so sorry! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Disc Wheel: Sorry for the huge delay! Review:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

What needs to be done:

Lead: As far as I understand, the team ranking is determined by the times of the top three riders on each stage. If so, this should be clearly stated in the lead when talking about that classification.
Teams: Some teams do not have wikilinks, even though articles exist for them (Roslotto, Panaria, etc.)
Race overview: Towards the end of the second paragraph, there's a typo at "Saeco".
The biggest issue are the classification tables at the end of the article:
- Mountain's classification: There are two Buenohoras listed, which does not seem to be correct.
- Also, the sources do not give a top 10 for the mountain's classification, only the top 8. So if you cannot find another source for this, please only give the top 8 in the article as well.

Other than that, very well written article. I'll put the review on hold.

Status query[edit]

Zwerg Nase, I unfortunately have to tell you that Disc Wheel hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 24, twelve days after you opened the review, but over a month and a half before you posted it two weeks ago. Under the circumstances, unless you can find someone else to address the issues you've raised with the article, you will probably have to fail the nomination. Should Disc Wheel eventually return, they can submit a new nomination then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Apologies, just got into school break. Anywho, resolved the issues you brought up and thank you for the review. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in order. I'll pass this gladly, congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]