Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA2

GA Review
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)

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

Sorry for the huge delay! Review:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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
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)


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