Talk:2016 Paris–Roubaix/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (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:

I made some minor changes myself. What is left:
 * You should put peloton in italics everywhere it appears.
 * Race summary: "after coming back from being his crash" - something is not right here.
 * Race summary: "he agreed to work fully for Stannard" - pure speculation, you should rephrase this.
 * Post-race: Same problem here as with E3, try to find more ways to write "he said".

That's about it. Again, good work! On hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stepped in and fixed all except point three. The ref does note that pretty clearly, actually, so I don't know how that'd be rephrased without making it incorrect. Wizardman  14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, ! Promoted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)