Talk:1907 Tour de France

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1907 Tour de France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ...fell and had his steer penetrating his knee... What is this supposed to mean?

   During stage 9 After the tenth stage, Consistency. "Render numbers greater than nine as figures or, with consistency within each article, render numbers over nine that take two words or fewer to say as words" WP:MOS

   The Alcyon team, with Trousselier as best placed cyclist, was not satisfied with the fine given to Georget, and left the Tour in protest Rephrase for better grammar and style.

   the organisers decided to Georget back from the fourth place of the ninth stage to the 48th and last place, This is almost gibberish!

   The lead so transferred to Lucien Petit-Breton Very poor prose.

   Petit-Breton finished the next stages all in the top three, so his lead never became in danger any more.

   OK, enough. As stated in a previous review, GA review is not a substitute for peer review. Please copy-edit, get it peer reviewed and make sure that the article meets the GA criteria before nominating.

   I did make some minor copy-edits.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As in the previous years, there were two classes of cyclists, the coureurs de vitesse' "poinçonnée category" is explained, but we need an explanation for "coureurs de vitesse".

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article clearly fails to meet the GA criterion of reasonably well written. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/TDF/1907/us/annee.html?RaceYear=1907&x=23&y=4
  • In 1907 Tour de France on 2011-05-25 02:36:56, 404 Not Found
  • In 1907 Tour de France on 2011-06-02 02:13:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1907 Tour de France/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Will review later today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

What needs to be done is:

• Lead: The lead should mention that it is a stage race.

Added this by saying the number of stages.

• Participants: Saying that it was "clear" that the sponsored riders would compete for the overall victory is speculation.

Changed into 'expected'. By the way: the referenced book by Amels said that (paraphrased) that it was clear at the start that those riders would compete for the victory, so it is at least a sourced speculation/expectation.

True, but WP should refrain from a speculative terminology. Expected is a lot better.

• Race details: As you clearly state, there were no teams in that edition, so avoid the term team in the prose.

There were no official teams, but the riders helped cyclists with the same sponsor, so the race progressed as if there were teams. I don't know how to express this without using the word team?

For instance, you could write to keep (riders from?) both sponsors satisfied.

OK, I did that and also avoided the word 'team' in other places.

• Results: Stage with mountain sounds like there was only one in every stage. Stage with mountain(s) would be better.

Indeed, changed.

• General classification: Add a source here on the riders not in teams and not allowed to work together.

To be done later, it must be in one of the sources already included, I just have to find the right one.

• Final general classification: Any chance to give the full GC as in recent editions?

As far as I can see, the full GC is given...

Sorry, mea culpa. It didn't appear on my print out.

• Notes: All need references.

I should then find out how to put references in notes...

You can use the {{ref|1|1}} template and add the notes on the bottom manually with {{note|1|1}}, then you can add a reference at the end of the prose. You can check 2015 United States Grand Prix for the way we do it in the Formula One Project.

Actually, there might be some better ways. See: Template:Note.

2016 Formula One season is a good example of references in footnotes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I got this to work. I removed the Dargassies note: I copied this from another wikipedia article, where it is sourced but not in a way I can check it. And actually this note was not really important for the 1907 story.

• Refs: I cannot access reference number 21, since it demands an account. I cannot evaluate this, but it seems to be a non-reliable source.

I guess you are right. Replaced it by a book reference.

That's all from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I did the first (easy) things. Life is busy, next edit will be at least after the weekend, I hope you can wait for that...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdgeNavidad: No sweat, take all the time you need! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, Relentlessly added a clarification needed template. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I was busy this week, but the next few days I should have time again.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I have addressed everything now, including the clarification asked by Relentlessly. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! It's a pass, congrats! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it's a bit late, but I do notice that there's a few missing page numbers:

• 6. De geschiedenis van de Tour de France 1903–1984
• 7. Le Tour: A History of the Tour De France
• 9. La Fabuleuse Histoire du Tour de France.

BaldBoris 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)