Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Giro d'Italia/archive1

2010 Giro d'Italia
This peer review discussion has been closed.. I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to get it to FA. I think it could probably pass GA right now, and I'll go there next, but it's definitely a bit wet behind the ears right now and could use some new eyes looking at it.

Thanks, Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to drive-by poster: I have already done so. Whenever I list an article or two or three at PR or GAN, I always take that same number (if not more) myself. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is not a "drive-by post". It is an attempt to get more editors involved in the review process, and appears on all new PR nominations when the backlog reaches a certain level. I am sorry that you have taken offence; I assure you that your review efforts are appreciated, and hope that you will continue to help the PR process. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in a bit of bitchy mood, and it seemed really imp[ersonal. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

General
 * Make sure there are non-breaking spaces between a number and its unit. (22 teams, 20 minutes, 21 stages, etc.)
 * Will do.
 * What is a "peloton"?
 * The largest group of cyclists in the race. Suppose a link to peloton will help?
 * I note you indicated the footnote with [N 1]. When having to use a footnote, as opposed to a reference, I'll use letters (A, B, C...) instead of numbers to avoid any confusion between the two, but this a personal preference so there is no obilgation for you to actually listen to me ;-)

Intro
 * "a return to the original colour scheme for the three minor classifications that reflected the colours of the Italian flag, the points' competition leader was indicated by a red jersey"
 * I'd include what the green and white jerseys were used for.
 * I don't think this is actually lead-worthy. It was put there when there was very little information present on the race, a year or so ago at this time.
 * "The overall very turbulent in the first week,"
 * "The overall was very turbulent...". Also what is the "overall"?
 * The overall standings. The General classification. The General classification in the Giro d'Italia even :P

Teams
 * Was there ever a reason given for not inviting the Dutch teams?
 * There's just a lot of top-level teams in the sport this year. Even Team RadioShack, Lance Armstrong's team, didn't get invites to every race they wanted. It wasn't so much a decision to exclude the Dutch teams as it was that they were probably #23 and #24 on the list of 22 teams to get invites, since the top 14 couldn't be changed. There's a new agreement for 2011 that the top 17 teams in the 2010 UCI World Ranking will get the guaranteed slots next year, meaning this very easily could pop up again. Race organizers usually like to include local teams (hence Androni-Giocattoli, Acqua e Sapone, Colnago) first anyway.

Route and stages
 * "...the following classifications by race organizers Gazzetta dello Sport: four time trials (three individual and one team, seven flat stages, five mixed stages, and six mountain stages.[39]"
 * There is a missing right parentheses ) that is needed in the sentence, possibly after "one team".
 * Good catch.
 * "...which figured into end in mass sprints,"
 * Unsure of what it is being said here.
 * Stages in which the majority of the field is together and the cycling sprinters attempt to get the stage win. These contrast with the mountain stages, where climbing specialists finish ahead, often crossing the line one or two at a time (hence "mass" sprint).

Don't usually follow / read / review cycling-related topics, but this was interesting and a refreshing change. I agree with you on that this could easily be a GA.
 * Eeexcellent :)

This would normally be the part where I'd use the PR reviewer's rethoric and ask you to "consider reviewing an article in the backlog" but as seeing how you have already done so... Thanks for reviewing and keep up the good work! ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Niagara. Past experience tells me I'm unlikely to get more than one review, and I think the article is ready for GAN anyway, so I'm closing this. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)