Wikipedia:Peer review/1907 Tour de France/archive1

1907 Tour de France
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get the article to GA-status. The first nomination failed, because of prose problems. The reviewer left some comments, and suggested a PR before a new nomination. I have tried to fix the mistakes that he found, but I don't know if I did this right, after all, I thought my initial prose was fine. I did not change "The Alcyon team, with Trousselier as best placed cyclist, was not satisfied with the fine given to Georget, and left the Tour in protest", even though the reviewer mentioned it needed "better grammar and style", because I honestly don't see what's wrong with that line. English is not my first language, so I miss the capability to write brilliant prose needed for a FA, but I hope this review can give me a hint what I need to improve to write well-written prose for a GA.

Thanks, EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang


 * "The Alcyon team, with Trousselier as best placed cyclist, was not satisfied with the fine given to Georget, and left the Tour in protest."
 * I believe this could have been improved to "Unsatisfied with the fine given to Georget, Trousselier and his Alcyon team left the Tour in protest."
 * Done.


 * Similarly the opening sentences of the article would, in my opinion, be better as: "The 5th annual Tour de France bicycle race took place in 1907. From 8 July to 4 August, participants cycled 4488 km (2,788 mi) across France.  The winner, Lucien Petit-Breton, completed the race at an average speed of 28.47 km/h (17.69 mi/h)."
 * Partially done: WP:LEAD says that, if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. To me it seems possible here.
 * True, but consider the redundancy: "X 2007 is the 5th annual X." Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "... the first Tour de France to visit the Western Alps ..."
 * Avoid anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. The Tour has no will or physical existence to "visit" a place.
 * Done (and I always thought I avoided such anthropomorphisation...)


 * "... was in the beginning dominated by ..."
 * "... was dominated at the start by ..."
 * Done.


 * "Petit-Breton won two stages, and the victory overall."
 * "Petit-Breton won two of the remaining stages and the Tour."
 * Done, but I have the feeling this makes it less clear for the non-cycling fan...


 * "... could not defend his title since he had committed suicide ..."
 * "... did not defend his title because he had committed suicide ..."
 * Done.


 * "The length again increased by one stage, ..."
 * So when was the previous time the length was increased by one stage? By using "again", the reader is expected to know it had happened before (which will make him or her wonder what happened last time and confused why this was not mentioned).  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "... and for the first time Switzerland was included. The mountain stages had been so successful, according to the organiser Henri Desgrange, that the western Alps were included."
 * The link between the two sentences can confuse readers. If Switzerland (mountains) was included the first time, how can anyone judge "the mountain stages had been so successful" at that time?  The context of "mountain stages" here should be clarified.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The race was again contested by the points system, as in the previous year."
 * How does a "points system" (not even a living thing) participate in the race or oppose it?
 * Changed.


 * I think it should also be clarified that the overall winner is the one with the least number of points. Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "... a car with bicycle repairmen rode behind the riders ..."
 * A car does not "ride".
 * Changed to "drove" (although I think the driver drives, not the car...)
 * Passengers "ride" in a car. A driver "drives" a vehicle, and vehicles "drive" on their own as well.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "... the first domestiques in the history of the Tour de France."
 * Do not divert readers to another article to get a basic understanding of a unique term; append a description (basic explanation) of the term either in parentheses or as a descriptive clause.
 * I read in the "domestique" article that this term was first used in 1911, so I changed the 1907 article to avoid this term.


 * "Jean-Marie Teychenne", then "... from that moment Teycheime was also ..."?
 * Changed.
 * My initial point is to note the different spelling of the names. Which is correct?  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The coureurs de vitesse could get help from the car with bicycle repairmen when they had to fix a bicycle, and when a bicycle was beyond repair, they could change it to a new one."
 * Unsourced.
 * Added tag to remind myself to source it later.


 * "... the general classification was as follows:"
 * The general practice here is not to present main body items as lists/tables, but in prose. Lists and tables generally stand on their own without being addressed to.
 * Generally they do, for example the two other tables in this article, but these two tables are different. The information given here is at this point relevant to understand the race's development. If they are given without introduction, the accompanying prose misses something. If the MOS says something about it, I'll be happy to change it, but I think it is really normal in this kind of situation to introduce the table in prose, as it is used in books, journal articles and other encyclopediae.
 * My point is that it can be done in prose "X led the group with Y points, followed by A with B points. In third place was M with N points." and such.  The flexibility with sentences (prose) allows the interjection of critical comments as well.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "... started in the "poinçonnée" category of riders ..."
 * What is the "poinçonnée" category?
 * The category as explained in "Participants" (which is obvious to me). I now changed the wordings to make it more obvious, also to somebody who did not write this article.


 * "Petit-Breton finished the next stages all in the top three, so no other cyclist was able to challenge him for the overall victory. At the end of the race, he had increased his lead to a margin of 19 points to Garrigou and 27 points to Georget."
 * Unsourced.
 * Sourced by the reference that was used three times before and three times after, but I now added it here.
 * The main trend of references/citations here is that each paragraph of information should be sourced. If two consecutive paragraphs are based on the same source, they should still each be cited to the source.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The cyclists officially were not grouped in teams, but some cyclists had the same sponsor, even though they were not allowed to work together."
 * Unsourced.
 * Added tag to remind myself to source it later.


 * Why is the point system described only after the events in the race were presented?
 * It looked like the optimal place to put it. I understand why you disagree, so I moved it upwards, but now the best place is in the "Changes from the 1906 Tour de France" section, while the system is exactly the same as in 1906.
 * It would seem to me then that "Changes from the 1906 Tour de France" is not a good section header. Use "Background" or such.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a violation of WP:MOSFLAG not to name the country when its flag is first used.
 * I agree, but where in this article is this done? Everytime a flag is used, the country is also given. WP:MOSFLAG explicitly says it is ok to use shorter variants (it says can be used in stead of ), so I think this article is not in violation of the MOSFLAG.
 * My bad. I expected the name of the country to be next to the flag, not at the end of the athlete's name.  I am not enamored with this layout and do not like the three-letter ISOs (which can still be as confusing as flags without names), but I am not as harsh on them.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a need to constantly put the French flag next to the racers in the first two tables?
 * No, removed.


 * What makes www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net, www.nieuwsdossier.nl, www.wielercentrum.com, www.tour-giro-vuelta.net, www.veloarchive.com, and www.wielercentrum.com reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.
 * www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net: The site has a contact us page, and is backed by a French legal entity. Info on other races than the Tour de France is only available for paying members, so the website relies on the accuracy of the content. Is considered reliable in the cycling community.
 * www.nieuwsdossier.nl: I can not prove nor disprove its reliability.
 * www.wielercentrum.com: I can not prove nor disprove its reliability. I know that in this case and the above case this means the source can not be used, so I will go and replace these sources by other sources, unless I find a proof they are reliable.
 * www.veloarchive.com: Personal website. Brilliantly researched, but unfortunately not reliable. I will replace it by some other source.


 * File:Lucien Mazan.jpg and File:Georget emile.jpg: Where did these photographs come from (WP:IUP and WP:CITE)? How do these photographs qualify for PD-old (which asks that the copyright holder has died more than 70 years ago)?  If the copyright holder was 20 years old in 1900, and lived till 1960, he certainly has not died more than 70 years ago.
 * File:Lucien Mazan.jpg: according to the source given in Commons, provided by Nationaal Archief (the Dutch national archive, which is a reliable source I guess), the photographer is unknown (Dutch: Fotograaf onbekend). In this case, the copyright expires 70 years after publication, which has passed already.
 * When was this photograph made public? See commons:Comnmons:Anonymous-EU: "a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity."  If the photograph remained in a private collection until now, it is still copyrighted according to this rule.  Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Georget emile.jpg: I removed the PD tag on commons, and started a discussion there. Probably the image will have to go.

Overall, I think the GA reviewer was correct. I recommend you to seek help from one more fluent in the English language to give the article a copy-edit. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I corrected some things in the article, but have still some minor questions on some things. I don't have the time now to ask them, but I hope you will help me later. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The GA reviewer was correct (I even thanked him/her for correctly failing this article). Thanks again for the remarks. I changed most of them directly in the article (and tried to learn from it). Some things I'd like your comments on: the first sentence, the use of the two tables in the prose, the location of the explanation of the points system, and the MOSFLAG interpretation. If I'm not taking up too much of your time, that is... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)