Jump to content

Talk:1971 Tour de France

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total distance/average speed

[edit]

There seems to be uncertainty about the total distance (and hence average velocity - the winning time is consistent in different sources):

The box on this page quotes:

  • Distance (d): 4118 km (suspiciously close to the 4117 km of 1969)
  • Winning time (t): 96h 45' 14" (= 96.754 h)
  • Average velocity (v): 38.084 km/h
  • hence, d/t = 42.562 km/h - internally inconsistent and a bit high

The body text quotes:

  • d = 3689 km
  • v = 36.925 km/h
  • hence, using d/v = 99.905 h; probably too high (t may well be the most trustworthy value)

The sum of the stage lengths on this page gives:

LeTour.fr gives:

  • d = 3608 km
  • v = 38.084 km/h
  • t = 96h 45' 14"
  • hence, d/t = 37.290 km/h; internally inconsistent

AstroFloyd (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work shy wheelsuckers

[edit]

I'm just curious why it is ok to include the opinion on Lomme Driessens on this matter claiming that Zoetemelk & Van impe were workshy wheelsuckers but it's not ok to state the actual fact that Zoetemelk didn't have a single teammate in the top 50, often times only had 3 or 4 guys finishing the race on his team & was basically in an isolated position at all times early in his career? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly let me just let you know that I'm not interested in warring with. I'm here only to try and write a 'good' article. I don't write to make some look better than others, so if that's what you're saying then you are completely wrong. And also, "In fact Merckx disliked Driessens before.." and the paragraph about Van impe and Zoetemelk aren't about the race so can only be included as notes.
The pair were seen by Driessens as that in this race, so I thought it was worthy of noting. I read others saying the same thing, so I don't believe it is as outrageous as you seem to think. Anyway, it's quite clearly a just a fact in this race, Van impe not so much. There's no need for you to get offended for them. I think some of the stuff about Zoetemelk and Van impe is worthy, but needs tidying and must all be cited. Did you read it somewhere, if so, where? I'll search and see what I can find. BaldBoris 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was found out by researching the start list for the team that he rode on each year in the case of Zoetemelk.... And noticing that not only did most of his teammates not even finish the race but the ones who did were ranked around 90th place in the first 2 years.... In the subsequent years they fared slightly better but not by much and it wasn't until 1975 that he had a single teammate in either the top 30 or the top 50 I forget which... In any case you're not a wheelsucker if half your team doesn't finish the race and The other half can't even crack the top 50 year after year so if you're going to slander a rider using what some other DS said it's worth adding a counterpoint in the interest of partiality and being fair.... It didn't apply to Van Impe because he had strong riders on his teams often times including former Tour winners.... Then as far as Merckx and Driessens earlier yes I see your point but I only included it Because it was within 2 or 3 pages on the very same source that was cited which may not have been relevant but at the same time might be because it gives more insight between Merckx and driessens which is useful but I suppose not entirely necessary.... As i said i just happened to notice it in the source that was given Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1971 Tour de France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Will review shortly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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:

General comment

[edit]

The FA review for 1985 Tour de France has led to the understanding that the classifications section should be put ahead of the race overview in order to make it more understandable for readers. This has not been discussed in the WikiProject yet, but I wanted to point it out since it could lead to problems if you want to take this article to FA (which I hope you will). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Not sure about giving the number of TTs alongside the rest days. Especially since it does not clarify what type of time trials. Would recommend speaking just about length and start and finish in the first sentence, then mention split stages along rest days in the following sentence, focusing on how many stages there were.
  • "unknowingly" is a very strange term. Maybe "inadvertently"? Also, "returned" sounds like he actually handed the jersey to Merckx, I would reword that as well.
  • "closet rival" - missing "s"
  • I think using "solo" as a verb might be to colloquial. Maybe "rode on his own"?
  • "down to Marseille" - would cut "down"
  • "and afterwards was hit by two other riders" - if this is debated, as the footnote suggests, maybe cut it from the lead and write about it in detail in the prose?

More to come, sorry for the long delay. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

[edit]
  • Maybe add a source from van den Akker about how teams were invited? The article in De Volkskrant is quite vague about it, I feel.
  • The sentence about Mars-Flandria might be a chance to say what the entrance fee is used for (see Volkskrant article) and maybe you have more information on how much more the team had to pay?

Pre-race favourites

[edit]
  • Footnote #15 is used twice at the end of the first sentence.
  • "He was unrivalled" reads a bit odd, considering that he only won almost half of his races.
  • The sentence "Merckx was such an overwhelming favourite that the interest was not in if could win, but rather the manner in which he would do it." is followed by a source that reads "Whoever beats Merckx wins the Tour". So apparently there was talk of him not winning? Maybe this can be reworded slightly?

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route and stages

[edit]
  • "it was announced that city of" - missing a "the"
  • "At distance of 3,608 km (2,242 mi)" - missing "a"
  • "maximised the amount route locations" - missing "of"
  • "There were total of five transfers" - missing "a"
  • "The previous Tour's split stages" - quickly explain what split stages are
  • "was overriding" - maybe "was an overriding factor"?
  • "There three split stages" - missing "were"
  • "the shortest in the history of the race (as of 2017)" - can this potentially be updated?
  • "and one was by raced by teams" - a "by" too many

Race overview

[edit]
  • As per the FA review for 1986, it has been suggested that we leave out the "1971 Tour de France" part in the second part of the main template. So that it reads "Main articles: 1971 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 9 and Stage 10 to Stage 20". See 1986 Tour for the wikicode. Not a must, but I thought it was a neat idea.

Vosges, Belgium and north-west:

  • I am guessing the wind on stage 2 was a tail wind? Maybe clarify so that the causation between wind and speed becomes clearer.
  • "the Tour ended", that sounds a bit like the entire Tour was over.
  • "who, on the straight slightly uphill finish, they" - scrap "they"; also clarify who they held off
  • "witnessed the valiant breakaway of Agostinho" - I'd choose a more neutral wording
  • "a further 11 down in third place" - add "seconds"

Massif and Chartreuse

  • Header: Add "Central"
  • "lost the green jersey by end" - "by the end of the stage"; also the comma afterwards is not necessary
  • "cloud covered final climb" - bit too much editorialising for my taste
  • "moved ahead of the Merckx" - either "Merckx group" or just "Merckx"
  • "limiting the loses" - losses
  • "Ocaña's Bic" - add "team"
  • "On short descent" - add "the"
  • "the group then passed the unused Désiré Letort of Bic, who had played a part in his team's concerted effort by breaking away alone earlier for a possible juncture with his leader" - I would scrap this altogether, this sentence doesn't lead anywhere, way too trivial. Would rephrase, "Soon after the descent, Merckx suffered a puncture..."
  • "set such a dominating pace" - again, more neutral wording
  • "up the Porte" - "Col de Porte"

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow still. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

Zwerg Nase, BaldBoris, where does this review stand? It has been open for about two and a half months, yet not a single edit has been done in response to what has been reviewed thus far, while the review is not yet complete. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both had quite a lot to do in the last couple of weeks, but I am confident that I'll be able to finish the review over the next couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase and BaldBoris - This review seems to have stalled: there haven't been any comments in months. If now isn't a good time, you might consider just withdrawing the nomination for now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for the reminder. The past weeks have been pretty hellish personal life wise... I am back on it and I hope BaldBoris will be as well :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ and Zwerg Nase: Sorry for the delays. I'll give it a shot and try to get over the finishing line. BaldBoris 16:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, Zwerg Nase, & BaldBoris, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase, BaldBoris, I first posted a status query over three months ago, and BaldBoris has yet to make an edit to the article—indeed, the article hasn't been edited despite portions of this review having been posted in January. It's clear that this is not a good time for the issues raised by the review to be addressed. If this continues to be the case, I strongly recommend that the review be closed on July 3, six months to the day from when it was opened. Half a year is beyond generous. A new nomination can always be made once the issues raised here have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Any chance you will get to editing within the coming week? If so, I will continue the review, otherwise, I'll close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1971 Tour de France/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

Review meta comments

[edit]
@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for the first comments! I would wait until you finish the review before I get to changes. Full disclosure: This article was not written by me, it was mainly penned by BaldBoris. I did the original GA review, but unfortunately, he apparently stopped editing while it was up for review, so I decided to pick it up now. Have worked in my comments from my review before nominating it this time around. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I logged in for the first time in years last week to create an article, so luckily I've caught this. I'll help get it over the line of course as it was my latest major effort. I still have all the books :) BaldBoris 23:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why the Classification leadership section was moved? I was always the one keen on having consistency between all the race articles. I'm guessing a comment in an FAC prompted this move? This needs bringing up at WT:CYC. A minor, but also the Race overview hatnote (which I like btw). BaldBoris 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BaldBoris: Yes, this was triggered by a FA review. I am not sure if all TdF (and Giro and Vuelta for that matter) articles have taken over this format yet. Very glad to have you back on board! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I only just realized that you've already put this review on hold. So the above comments are all you think needs taking care of? If that is the case, then we can get on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was all I had Zwerg Nase. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Sorry again for the long silence (and probably costing you potential barnstars...). I hope to get to many of the points today, if I don't, I will have to get to it next Wednesday, if you'd be willing to keep the review open for that long. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I wasn't taking part in the backlog drive, and my wikicup points were woefully bad. Yeah, I can keep it open til you get a chance to look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase - I'm sure you just forgot about this, but I'm a bit out of time and this has run on for some time. Can I give you a deadline of Friday to get this one done? If not I'll close. No prejudice against reopening. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_Tour_de_France&oldid=1196070192"