Talk:2021 Milan–San Remo/GA1

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

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 10:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Normally, the only cycling I watch is the Tour de France, so this should be interesting. It will take me a couple of sessions, so my first edit to this page won't be a completed review.

Not bad. I have identified some areas that need to be improved above. In the cases where I have inditified things as not being sourced, it is entirly possible that I just missed something. The biggest thing standing between this article is the lack of images. I understand that free images of the event may not exist, but free images of the riders do. As a bare minimum, I would like to see a picture of Stuyven in the race/post-race section and an image of at least one of the pre-race favourites (Alaphilippe, van Aertor van der Poel) in that section.I'll place the article on hold to give you time to adress this issues. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * Lead
 * La Classicissima - it's not immediatly clear what this is. Possibly, include that it is known as La Classicissima in the opening paragrapgh, or simply say "the race" instead.✅
 * I think this could do with a little beefing-up, as it is currently very short. I suggest you add a couple of sentences about the route (length, points of interest, altercations from previous editions, whatever you feel are the biggest talking points) and a couple about pre-race favourites.✅ SSSB (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It being the sixth race is unsourced, lists it as the 8th event. This also isn't in the body, but I would argue that it falls under "basic facts" which don't need to be repeated in the body.✅
 * the Poggio - again, not clear what this is. You should also spell out its full name (at least in the first instance) to avoid confusion with other Poggios. The best change is probably, "bottom of the descent of the final hill, the Poggio di San Remo".✅ SSSB (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Teams
 * (Not necessary for promotion but,) source 4 is a dead link.✅
 * Pre-race favorites
 * All three had won stages at Tirreno–Adriatico, which finished four days prior, - "...which had finished..."✅
 * In last year's edition, - replace with "In the 2020 edition", when people read it next year, it won't be last year's addition anymore.✅
 * There are no inline citations for van der Poel finishing 13th on debut last year✅ or van Aert finishing 6th on his first attempt✅ (but it is entirely possible it is there and I missed it.
 * What's "neo-pro"? Options including wikilinking the term, or adding a footnote containing a definition.✅
 * join a heralded group - heralded is unnecessary MOS:PUFFERY, should be removed.✅
 * Route
 * However, the return to its usual late - "However" is WP:EDITORIAL, can just be removed. "The return to its usual late..."✅
 * from the finish is not expected to be a major inflection point - tense, "...from the finish was not expected...".✅
 * I don't see a source for the claim that the Poggio is a common place to lauch race winning attacks. (again it is possible it is there and I missed it.) The claim that the Poggio is a common place to launch attacks isn't cited in this section, but is mentioned in the first citation in the race report section, consider including that ref in this section.✅
 * As routine calculations aren't WP:OR, I have no other concerns with this section. SSSB (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Race report
 * Despite the cool temperature of 6 °C (43 °F)... - the "despite" here isn't justified by the sources.✅
 * You've written "the octet included", and then proceded to list all 8 (included implies you are listing a subset). "the octet was made up of" would be better.✅
 * ...nearly eight minutes in the first 30 kilometres (19 mi)... - the 30km claim is unsourced.✅
 * n the run-in to the Cipressa climb, Tonelli and van der Hoorn made separate attacks to try and extend their time out front... - couldn't see this part of the sentence supported in the sources.✅
 * I'm not sure that "World Time Trial Champion" should be capitilised.
 * Adressed at bottom
 * while the rest of the group looked around and watched each other, - this sentence is a little unencylopedic. Simply "the rest of the group did not react,..." conveys the same value, and sounds more proffessional.✅
 * Clarifying that the via Roma is the finish straight (it is, right?)✅
 * with the group barreling down on the lead duo, - unnecessarily sensational. Simply "with the group closing the gap to the lead duo,"✅
 * On his limit, he was forced to sit back down in the saddle - he wasn't "forced". Simply say "on his limit, he was unable to keep strpinting, and sat back down". The claim that he was on his limit is also not supported.✅
 * Some key favorites like - "including", instead of "like" sounds more professional, this is an improvement that can be made twice in this sentence.
 * - not a reqirement for promotion anyway.
 * The sources support that Alaphilippe attacked in 2020 (second consecutive year), but not 2019 (third consecutive, as claimed by this article. This is supported in the post-race section. Potentially thinking about citing that source in this section too. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, Loïc Vliegen (Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux) took a turn too wide and crashed into a safety barrier on the side of the road; he was relatively unharmed and was able to continue riding. - However is WP:EDITORIAL and should be removed. The source also doesn't verify that he was unharmed or that he continued racing.✅
 * as no one had any supporting teammates and most were trying to conserve energy for the finale. - can't see support for this in sources.✅ SSSB (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-race
 * Caleb Ewan expressed mild disappointment - "mild" is unnecessary, and is, in my opinion, contradicted by the source where he says he is "pretty" disapointed.✅
 * Like Ewan, both riders would have been prime contenders for the sprint, so when they were without any teammates to chase down Stuyven in the finale, they chose to look around and conserve their energy - couple of problems. Firstly, I don't see verification of this sentence in the sources. Secondly, "they chose to look around and conserve their energy" sounds like they were just on a pleasure ride. I recommend to remove "look around".✅
 * knee tendonitis - does a wikilink exist for this, or at least "tendonitis"?✅
 * I don't see support in citations that he has "neo-pro" status (again, what does this mean?) or that this would clssify him as a dark horse.✅
 * Result
 * Specify in the heading of the table that only the top 10 finishers are listed✅. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * General comments
 * Caleb Ewan expressed mild disappointment - "mild" is unnecessary, and is, in my opinion, contradicted by the source where he says he is "pretty" disapointed.✅
 * Like Ewan, both riders would have been prime contenders for the sprint, so when they were without any teammates to chase down Stuyven in the finale, they chose to look around and conserve their energy - couple of problems. Firstly, I don't see verification of this sentence in the sources. Secondly, "they chose to look around and conserve their energy" sounds like they were just on a pleasure ride. I recommend to remove "look around".✅
 * knee tendonitis - does a wikilink exist for this, or at least "tendonitis"?✅
 * I don't see support in citations that he has "neo-pro" status (again, what does this mean?) or that this would clssify him as a dark horse.✅
 * Result
 * Specify in the heading of the table that only the top 10 finishers are listed✅. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * General comments


 * Hey, thanks for your comments. As I'm going through them, I've found that your stance as someone who is probably less well-versed in cycling than I am has been super eye-opening, as many aspects that seem obvious to me need that extra clarification for the average reader. I'm not done yet, but I do have some questions and comments about what I've gone through so far.

Benjamin112 &#9742;  05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There aren't any direct links that show it as the sixth event, but after the cancellation of the first two events, it was moved up from eighth to sixth. I included references to the original calendar and to the cancelled races.
 * 2) Dead link in teams section fixed with archived url.
 * 3) I've kept World Road Race Champion and World Time Trial Champion capitalized, as per MOS:CUE, which is often applied to other sports that lack a detailed MOS.
 * 4) Regarding as no one had any supporting teammates and most were trying to conserve energy for the finale and the similar quote in the post-race section, both Wout van Aert and Caleb Ewan mentioned this in their post-race interviews. This fact was pointed out by race commentators, but I'm not sure how I'd go about citing the broadcast. I removed it from the race report anyway because it was only confirmed in post-race interviews.
 * 5) Added a definition for neo-pro (essentially a rookie). The betting odds from another source support the dark horse status, as does usual impressions of a rookie in any sport. Would this still need to be verified?
 * I'll take these points one-by-one in the same order as you raised them.
 * That's fine.
 * Good
 * That's fine
 * If it is cited in the post-race section, then it can stay (as I indicated above, it is well within the realms of possibility that I missed things). But you could consider adding the source in those sections. It is up to you.
 * Simply being a rookie or not an odds-on favourite does not make you a dark horse automatically. I would like to see a source at least imply they are a dark horse ("John Doe could be a surprise contender") before the article does so. SSSB (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the end of the seven-day phase to address comments automatically triggers a re-review but this is just a heads up that I've gone through and made the necessary revisions per your comments. Thanks once again for your review! ✅ Benjamin112 &#9742;  04:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the seven days is nothing more than a guideline. It took me 8 to complete my review in the first place. I'll get to it as soon as I can, but I can't make any solid guarentees about when, as I have suddenly and unexpecently become rather busy. SSSB (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries then; take your time! Wasn't sure if/how to make it known that I finished my part of the process and my inexperience led me to interpret the seven days strictly. Benjamin112 &#9742;  15:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to pass this article. COngratulations! SSSB (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's been a pleasure working with you on this nomination. Benjamin112 &#9742;  01:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)