Talk:2015 La Flèche Wallonne

2015 La Flèche Wallonne 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: August 6, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Cycling Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related 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:2015 La Flèche Wallonne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (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:

Again, here just minor things:

As with the Amstel Gold Race, you should move the citations out of the lead.
Pre-race favourites: You should give Kwiatkowskis team.
Final loops around Huy: You take the information that Gilbert looked sore from the source. I would say, that that is too much POV on the author's part and should probably taken out.
Race finale: Same goes for the assertion that the break didn't have a chance at 12 km to go. That is mere speculation on the author's part and should not go into the article. I'm sure you can phrase it more neutral.
Same as with Amstel Gold race, you should add a row with a source at the bottom of the UCI standings table.

That's about it :) Seven days on hold, I'm sure we'll be done a lot earlier! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zwerg Nase. All done, I think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, it's a pass :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]