Talk:1986 Tour de France/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Review coming soon. Stedil (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Teams

"85 were riding the Tour de France" reference says 68. In the next sentence, age is "26.58 years" but it's 26.69 in the reference. The last sentence in the paragraph says the youngest team is Seat–Orbea, but the reference says the youngest is Système U. Seat-Orbea isn't even listed in the reference. I notice some other odd details when looking at the reference. For example, it only lists 179 riders under "youngest competitors" even though there were 210. Is this a reliable source?

It usually is, so I am very confused about what happened here. Apparently Seat and Lotto have disappeared from the list since BaldBoris added these infos. I will look into it and try to find another source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it over seven years ago in my first Tour race venture, so I can't remember to be honest. I probably put in what was on ProCyclingStats at the time and didn't check when I updated the refs whilst adding these details to all the Tours. Bald Boris 23:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: Sorry for the long delay, I will get to working on this more tomorrow. Just a quick update: Since it is hard to find this information anywhere else, I have contacted the editors of ProCyclingStats in the hope that they'll fix the startlist... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a record that stood until it was tied by Sylvain Chavanel in 2018." This section is confusing. Was the record for starts or finishes? Does Chavanel hold the record outright, or is it shared with Zoetemelk? The information in the footnote doesn't agree with what's in the main text.

Have changed the year to 2016, which was the year Chavanel tied Zoetemelk's record. He then started two more times. The record talked about is starts, but the footnote mentions that Zoetemelk still shares most finishes with Chavanel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure this sentence and the footnote are correct. Didn't Hincapie and others in the footnote break the starts record before Chavanel? Stedil (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Stedil (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Stages

"Hinault personally insisted" meaning unclear. Did Hinault convince his teammates to slow down, or is he explaining after-the-fact why the team slowed down?

Rephrased.

"On stage 8, with 70 km (43 mi)" is this 70 km remaining, or 70km into the stage?

Fixed.

" Planckaert, not realising the situation, followed what he considered an attack in the company of Pelier, but all three were brought back." is there a reason Pelier is listed separately? Are we aware of Planckaert's intentions, but not Pelier's?

That's what the source said. Since Planckaert is the one who originally followed, and Pelier probably then tagged on, he is focus of the sentence. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still working... Stedil (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First time trial and transition to the mountains, Pyrenees

Concerning the header: isn't the prologue the "first time trial?"

Well, the prologue is not technically a stage, but have change to "long time trial". Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"LeMond found himself again in a situation where he was unable to chase his teammate himself" Why? Was he bound by "team tactics" again? Consider being more specific about what the team's strategy was supposed to be for this stage.

Have tried to make it a bit clearer. But yes, the "again" means that the situation was similar to the stage before.

For stage 13, there is a lot of text here without a citation. This appears to be a key section of the race, and it would be good to more specifically cite where certain statements come from, such as "the entire La Vie Claire team was stunned by Hinault's attack, explicitly breaking the tactics the team had agreed upon in the morning," as well as "attacked during the early part of the climb to soften up the opposition for LeMond."

The Moore source covers the entire section basically, that's why the citation has plenty of pages in it. I can split it up, but I am afraid I would them get into OVERCITE territory. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stedil (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply more tomorrow, looking forward to more comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transition to Alps/Alps

"due to missing a break in the peloton." What does this mean? Rephrase.
"Following Hinault's repeated attempt to put LeMond into difficulty, the latter threatened to resign" Awkwardly phrased, possibly POV issue. Isn't one of Hinault's claims, although perhaps spurious, that he was trying to "help" LeMond by attacking? Suggest more neutral phrasing, such as simply "After the stage, Lemond threatened to resign" or alternately, "As a result of Hinault's breakaway tactics, Lemond threatened to resign," or something similar.

Stedil (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification Leadership

"six of them awarding jerseys to their leaders." Check the reference page numbers. It says 452-455, but those pages appear to be part of the index. This reference is used throughout this section citing some combination of these pages.

Seems perfectly fine to me, according to the table of contents, which can be seen in Google Books, the Tour de France start on page 450 in volume 2. So that's correct. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now. The preview actually has all the volumes in it, even though it says it's just the 2nd volume. That index page is likely from a different volume. Stedil (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, last 2 sentences beginning "In the team time trial on stage 2," are confusing. I can't figure out how the finishing time is calculated from this explanation. What is "real time"?
The prose in this section could use some work. There are some repetitive phrases, such as "there was also," or "this classification," and general overuse of "this".
in the doping section, the last sentence "he had used testosterone to help him get through the Tour in 1986," the reference is a dead link. Archive or replace, if possible.

That's all I have. Most of the article's in great shape. Placing on hold to allow for the points above to be addressed. Stedil (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status Update

The review is almost complete. Looks like the final few sections to address are the procycling stats, discrepancies in the start record, the alps section, and the classification section. I'm not planning on closing it soon, so feel free to work slowly through the sections. I see you also have an FAC that's getting close to the bottom, so you may want to prioritize that review. As long as we're making progress here, there's no rush. Stedil (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: SO SORRY this is taking so long. FA has passed now, so I should be able to tackle this quickly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stedil, Zwerg Nase, it's been over two months since Stedil posted this section, and Zwerg Nase has yet to edit the article. It may be time to think about closing the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and pass this article. I removed the stats sourced to procycling for now; these can be re-added if they can be properly sourced. I fixed the small issues in the transition to alps section. I still think a rewrite of the classification section would improve the prose, but it is good enough for GA as written. Stedil (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]