Talk:2015 Eneco Tour/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to do this one as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:


 * Pre-race favourites: You speak about how Wellens won the previous edition. Two things about that: 1) I think it would be better to write that he won the race with an attack on the penultimate stage rather than in the penultimate stage, since he didn't win it a day ahead of time. 2) The sources just write about that he is the defending champion, not about the nature of his victory, so you should provide a source from 2014 as well.
 * For future reference: I am seeing this in your articles quite often, that there are parantheses missing around the team name behind the rider's name. You should be more careful here and proofread.
 * You should take another look at the punctuation in the captions. There should be a full stop for every caption that includes a full sentence (like the photo for stage 2).
 * I don't quite see how ref 10 includes the info about the classifications and the jerseys. There is a link to the 2013 reglement here, maybe that helps.

Good job so far! I will put this on hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, . In order:
 * Done.
 * You're quite right. Fixed the one and I have rigged up some regex to help me fix future articles.
 * Done.
 * This is tricky. The information regarding the classifications is not published anywhere as far as I can tell. The only way I could source it was by looking at the official results, which clearly show what the regulations were, albeit only by induction. They don't cover the colours of the jerseys, I agree, and I've added a source that does. I'm not sure what else I can do for this information.
 * Let me know what you think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so I added the 2013 reglement as a source as well. I believe that together, the sources should be sufficient to prove the point beyond doubt. I therefore give this a pass :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)