Jump to content

Talk:2010 Giro d'Italia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2010 Giro d'Italia has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 1, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
September 13, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Route

[edit]

We've got a route announced, but there are a fair amount of redlinks in the place names used by RCS. I don't know much about Italian geography, so if anyone knows of a location close to or that includes the (possibly quite specific) place names used by the race, please pipe to an article we have (like for last year, San Martino di Castrozza was piped to Siror) to minimize the number of redlinks. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Excellent. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think piping the place names is the best way to go. I think we should instead create redirects, or preferably create the articles. As an example of this we have the ski resort Ax-3 Domaines in Ax-les-Thermes, which is a well known mountain finish in Tour de France lately. According to "what links here", it seems like it only has featured as a finish in 2005, but the official Tour de France page states it has featured 3 times before. After some digging, I found out that the years were 2001, 2003, and 2005, as well as the future 2010 edition:

I have now created redirects for the ski resort (Ax-3 Domaines) and the ski area (Plateau de Bonascre), to the commune (Ax-les-Thermes). So that if you check "what links here" for the commune (bottom of the page), you will find the redirects from the ski resort. And once the article is created the links will still follow the ski resort, and not the commune as it currently does in the 2010 Tour de France. lil2mas (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. My point has been that we should use the same names used by the race itself, except in the case of a town name in a foreign language when there's a more commonly accepted name in English (i.e. "Turin" instead of "Torino" for last year's race). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor classifications progress table

[edit]

Not really digging this. It seems to stretch into the realm of minutiae, if not trivia. There is legitimate encyclopedic significance to who was awarded the jerseys each day, but the daily leaders of the incomprehensible "combativity" classification? Not so much. Including the traditional teams classification is conventional, but push to shove, I could do without it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once it is established that we are willing to track non-jersey classifications (the fast team category), what grounds are there to include some and exclude others? Nothing incomprehensible about the combativity section: points are earned at intermediate sprints, hill tops and stage finishes, which is far more objective than the TdF equivalent. The info is on the same table as pink/red/green/white jerseys on the official site: the Gazzetta does not consider it minutiae or trivia. I have seen at least the intermediate sprints (TV) competition referred to on live text commentary on cyclingnews. --Kevin McE (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great argument that we should list who wins these classifications in Verona, and that I agree with. Their daily leaders however are not significant. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You present no reason as to why we should treat some categories differently from others, when the race's main web presence does not. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What jersey is awarded to the leader of the Azzuri d'Italia classification? That's the distinction. There's, I dunno, cultural significance to the jersey awards. The ones that hardly anyone is familiar with don't have that significance. Again, not arguing to be completely mum on these awards, just that the treatment given them in the articles on the past few editions of the race is the correct one. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And further, how the race's website treats the awards has no bearing on what we should do. As you've critiqued to me in the past, we are not a cycling website. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that one non-jersey classification is more important than others, by choosing to include one and not others, is tantamount to OR. If it had turned out that I was the only one with any interest in updating these fields, I would have conceded, but after setting it up, I never updated it once, a variety of editors taking up the task, and thus suggestoing that they consider it worthwhile. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's baloney. People update whatever's there. I consciously didn't concentrate on this page much while the Giro was being run, as the level of activity was much too high. I could easily have removed the table several times. And I don't suggest that any non-jersey classifications are more important than any others. I don't want any of them to have a day-by-day breakdown – the GA on the 2007 and 2008 races and the FA on the 2009 race give these awards the correct weight. If you're talking about the Trofeo Fast Team, you're being obtuse. Every article we have on every stage race keeps track of the teams classification. Do I necessarily think that in particular is a good idea? Not really, but I'd include it out of convention. Obviously, this article is not (yet) anywhere close to good enough in quality for a GA review or even a Peer review, but perhaps a WP:3O is in order. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert while you are in the midst of a large edit, but you have no consensus for the removal of this. It is unfortunate that no-one else contributed to this discussion, but many editors contributed to the table. If your intention is to submit the article for review, then let the reviewers have an opinion on whether this is an improvement or not. Kevin McE (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{underconstruction}} is not {{inuse}}. If you feel an edit is necessary, this is still a wiki. No one contributed to any discussion about the table other than you and I – that's why I (more than a week ago) suggested a WP:3O. There's no consensus either way. I don't believe in 'tacit' consensus by continued existence and updating. People who update tables are mostly people who don't make larger edits to improve articles. That sounds more conceited than I mean it, my only point is that they'd update it if it was there, but they wouldn't put it there if it wasn't already there. My intention is to get this article to GA and eventually FA, with the FA on last year's race a rough template. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point precisely: by putting it forward for GA without the full progress table, you are reducing, virtually eliminating, the chance of getting a third opinion. Just because an articvle has been promoted to FA does not mean that it cannot be improved upon, nor that it was free of OR about relative importance of awards about which the previous reviewers were unaware, nor that any other FA for related articles must follow the same formula. Kevin McE (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your edit summary, sure, I'll still go for a 3O. 's what we have diffs for (or maybe you'll put the table back, I dunno). And I'm not sure where you're getting OR from. If anything, I've given the non-jersey awards undue weight (or undue lack of weight, in this case) in the 2007–2009 articles. I do disagree about FA. They're pretty much a gold standard as far as what we do here. Sure, minor stylistic improvements can be made, and certainly if new information on the topic breaks the article needs to be updated, but that's really about it. Substantive edits to a FA? I don't see them happening, unless the articles is in such a shape that it would fail a WP:FARC, and I'm certain that the article on last year's race would not. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not simply revert your deletion: that is simply editwarring. But I'm disappointed that you delete when the discussion is so clearly unresolved. You have still provided nothing to justify treating Fast Team differently from Super Team, nor a RS, as opposed to the existence of a shirt, to show that giving more prominence to the Youth category than to Azzurri d'Italia is anything other than OR. I think you misunderstood my comments about improving upon an FA: I was not suggesting (at this stage, anyway) editing the 2009 Giro article, but saying that the 2010 Giro article to be submitted for review could be an improvement on its predecessor, by, for example, a more thorough treatment of all the categories. Additionally, submitting it for review with the more complete category history chart in place would invite editors and reviewers to comment on it's appropriateness, thus acheiving the 3O we have both said is desirable. Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess I did miss your point a little. If you want to keep throwing OR at me, I'll respond to that with N. Do Farrar and his managers/sponsors care that he was the leader of the combativity classification for a day? Do any fans? Do they know? Did they even know at the time? By contrast, it's quite clear that his stint as the points classification leader is more significant – I can even cite intent on Farrar's part to finish the Giro if he had held the jersey (and yeah, that's a big part of it) a little longer. You speak of my editing out the table as though it were irrevocable, which I find a bit puzzling. I took it out because it had been eight or nine days since we had had any discussion here. I'm certainly the only one regularly editing older Giro articles, and I thought I was the only one working on this one at the time (and, once again, {{underconstruction}} is not {{in use}}. Hop on in if you can help). If I was the only one left, I was going to write the article how I liked it. Obviously I thought wrong about that, though. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O requested. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Here's the most recent diff that includes the table. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

I don't think there are any policy reasons mandating exclusion or inclusion of this material. It is just a matter of judgement about where the emphasis of the article should be. Those matters of judgement are best determined by community consensus. Thus what I am about to say is my opinion only. I think the best way to determine whether the additional categories warrant equivalent coverage - eg stage-by-stage classifications - is to survey the extent to which independent reliable sources cover the additional categories on a stage-by-stage basis. I see very little coverage of these classifications in English language sources. For example, cyclingnews lists the results on a daily basis but does not appear to give any prose coverage in its articles to the progress of the category standings. A survey of news archives doesn't come up with much coverage at all for the various categories (except for Most Combative, but the coverage there tends to focus on who won it in a stage, not the overall leadership). It seems clear to me that independent sources don't think these categories are significant. So I think it is open to - and preferable for (in the interests of balance) - the article to not list the stage-to-stage category leaders.

So on my overview of the sources I don't think these categories warrant day-to-day coverage, with the possible exception of Most Combative. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing the Giro's combativity classification with the Combativity award in the Tour de France (a very easy mistake to make). There's no "daily winner" for a combativity award in the Giro. The Giro's combativity classification is points-based, not votes-based like the Tour's award. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. I was trying to find the source that lead me to believe that, but I can't. I must have read it incorrectly.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a daily prize for the combativity award, but there is a daily table with points gained each day published by the race organisers. That would be equally true for the Young riders classification and the mountains category, and the only reason that there is a daily prize that would be identifiable for the points is that the rider with most points on a particular day is always the stage winner. I don't want to break the convention of BRD, despite constant invitations to edit-war. Although Farrar and his entourage might not have been particularly bothered about having led the Combativity, it seemed that the tactics of the likes of Flens and Pineau were influenced by these prizes: can SaxoBank's excitement about having led the Fast Team for a few days be proven? Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. My only (very, very, very weak) argument for keeping that is convention. I wouldn't at all be bothered if it were to go. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've never been a fan of BRD ;) Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest climbs section

[edit]

Something we really want to see on GT articles from here on? I'd rather not have this, partly because it is such a misnomer. The climb to the Foscagno is only about 200m, as the route only drops by c.100m from the Eira, which itself is only a 400m climb from the town. At best, the title for the table would have to be "highest altitude passes". They are by no means sprints: sometimes leadership is a matter of whose turn it was to pull on the break, sometimes it is a rider out alone, on one occasion a time trial. Opinions? Kevin McE (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent. I think it's interesting, but the information will be present in prose in either (eventually) this article or the stage recaps articles. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stage difficulties

[edit]

Curiously, Gazzetta dello Sport actually assigned star values to the difficulties of each stage. Is this something we want to include here? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to revert without edit summary

[edit]

here. The edits I reverted introduced improper usage of alt text, took away an entry from the infobox, and re-overlinked the teams dozens of times. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Giro d'Italia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sandman888 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Why does it start in the Netherlands?
    • No extra special reason. Amsterdam submitted a proposal to RCS Sport to host the Giro, since they wanted to, and RCS Sport said yes. Washington, DC is currently trying to do likewise, which would obviously be an even more spectacular opening.
Infobox
  • Per WP:Mosflag, flags should be adjacent to country name.
    • Where are they not? I'm usually the one who's most adamant about this among my Project.
  • Try avoiding the small text
    • Example?
      • Both of above is from the infobox. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm not going to edit an infobox without input from the Project. And, I still don't see where flags don't have nation names with them. Unless you want "Ivan Basso (Italy)" strongly ahead of "Ivan Basso (ITA)" and so forth.
  • "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and sport articles gladly violate that, emphasising nationality. But that's just one thing, more importantly "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon" and that is the full name. If you don't know what Italy is, I doubt (ITA) makes more sense. Sandman888 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there's very good reason to give nationality. Stage wins and overall finishes in the Giro contribute points to the UCI World Ranking, which is in turn used to determine how many riders each nation gets at the UCI Road World Championships. And I'm not sure the link to ITA makes the usage totally incomprehensible, but I'll edit it all the same.
    • Ruh oh, it introduces more "small text."
Main
  • remove notable
    • Well, the point is that several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders dropped out. Do you suggest an alternate phrasing? I guess "several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders" is the most technically accurate phrasing, but it's not at all concise, and I don't like it.
  • "was suspended by his national federation in February for his doping incident in the 2009 Giro" -> "a doping incident"
    • Why is vague better than specific? Which part of the first phrase do you intend to have replaced?
      • I just believe that when someone is alleged to have been doped the phrasing is "a doping incident" and not "his doping incident".
        • Ok. I suppose that makes sense. They've thrown the book at him, but he still hasn't been formally stripped of anything from the '09 Giro.
  • "skipped the Giro to better focus on the Tour de France, just as he did in 2009" -> "as he also did in the previous season."
    •  Done
  • the stats-table is unsourced
    • Which one? I don't see any conspicuously unsourced material.
      • Route and stages table + "Classification leadership" 1st table. Again, avoid small text. Sandman888 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both tables are simply visual representations of text that appears either here or on the stage recap pages. There's no one conspicuous citation that covers any of them. Do you really want [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] near them? Actually, it wouldn't be sequential numbers, since there are citations for each stage in the "race overview" section. That's the regular text size in the leadership table that's standard on all race articles. I wouldn't be sure how to change it, and what's exactly the problem with it anyway? Sorry if I sound snappish, I really just don't understand.
          • It needs to be verifiable so those that are referenced to the stage recap pages needs to go into the appropiate table. That is a no-brainer. Regarding those who were used in prose, I believe it should be as clear as possible what is sourcing what, so yes, they should be repeated. Regarding text, it is hard to read on other media. Sandman888 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So would you have opposed the FA nomination of 2009 Giro d'Italia? And, just to be clear, you do want 21 consecutive citations by each table? Or would it be 50 citations for the leadership table (the number of cells in the table)?
    • (outdent) [38] actually pretty well covers the first table. Where should it be placed the second time?
    • You know what, I think I'm actually going to dispute that these need copious sourcing. Only contentious facts must be sourced to the gills each and every single time they appear in an article. There's nothing contentious in either of these tables, and adequate sourcing exists in the article already. I highly, highly doubt anyone would disbelieve or challenge the article because it didn't have notations by visual aids. I passionately hate this assertion that we apparently write articles we don't expect anyone to read (else, why would it be so necessary to source the table? The sources are present when the facts, which the table is meant to illustrate, occur in prose). WP:CITE: "[inline citations] are required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations." (emphasis in original) I contend that the material present in the two tables is not likely to be challenged, particularly (but not only) considering that articles are used as references in the prose of the article that support everything these tables show.
I agree with Sandman888 that these tables should be sourced, but I think one source per table should be enough. If anybody wants to check if the distance reported for stage 12 is correct, they can do it by following the link and checking the distance. In fact, I just did, and the source reports that the distance is 206 km, while the article says 191 km, so this shows the importance of the sourcing. (Somebody should check the rest.) The classification leadership table also needs a source, so I added one, such that Sandman888 (and other readers) can check if Valerio Agnoli was really wearing the white jersey after stages 4 to 6. I checked, he was.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If stage lengths listed were incorrect (sources change constantly before an event is run, as likely the plans for the stages themselves also change. I thought I had them all correct, but perhaps not), that's a distinct issue. I don't understand why [56], [72], and [66] earlier in the article are so woefully insufficient to back up that Agnoli was wearing the white jersey for three stages (to use your example). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[56], [72] and [66] will probably show (didn't check but I believe you) that Agnoli wore the white jersey. But we show the leadership progress in a table, and if somebody wants to verify the table, do you want them to visit all 84 links to check where the information is? The sources are in the article, but not next to the table, so how would a reader know which source was used for this? I think it is just service to our readers, to add one extra source to this table, so it is clear where the information comes from.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a generalized resistance to change, for better or worse. We've never had to do it this way. It's never been considered necessary, even in articles reviewed to GA and FA status. Do I expect the "reader" (tell me we're not writing and reviewing articles no one is apparently expected to read) to check 84 links to verify one fact? Frankly, yes. Why else do we even have them? If the reader actually read the flipping article, he'd find those citations just fine.
But whatever. It's not that big a deal. I just don't really like it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • images: consider cropping File:Girod'Italia2010Amsterdam.jpg
    • If you referenced some of it by wikilinking to another article, then it isn't good enough. Those refs needs to be in this article as well. Sandman888 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing is sourced only in another article. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant that some text which the table illustrates occurs on the other articles. The minutiae of who wears which jersey when for 21 straight days is really not something that this article can comfortably handle in prose (which is the whole reason why we have the stages articles). I'm also not using the stage articles as a reference - the references are cyclingnews articles. Perhaps too much use of the word "article" Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not my image. I'm not wild about including it in the article at all, but I kept it in since someone added it months ago before my wide-scale revision. I'm not that good at manipulating images anyway.
  • % -> percent.
    •  Done



I was following the example of the FA-class 2009 Giro d'Italia article. Reviewers thought the section was incomplete without all points included, and didn't want it to scroll for ages. I did not *just* do anything, by the way, that section has been that way for months. So can no article ever have a collapsible section, then? You have hands down the strangest GA standards of any reviewer I've ever come across. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite ridiculous Sandman: by what authority do you outlaw a facility whose use is explained, and therefor surely condoned, if not encouraged, in Wikipedia's help section. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandman888, suggest that you read the GA criteria. This article clearly meets them and should be passed straight away. You have no reason to impose your own arbitrary standards. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read MOS:SCROLL which is an official guideline, which the help section is not. Sandman888 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria are quite clear. Which bit of "(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" do you not understand? There is no mention there of MOS:SCROLL. If you cannot understand the criteria or refuse to apply them, then please recuse yourself from this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria now updated/clarified per the discussion on WP:GAN talkpage. Since the MoS page is not required, neither is WP:Scroll and this can be passed. Remember to remain civil in future discussions. 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Sandman888 (talk)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 Giro d'Italia. 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) 21:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Giro_d%27Italia&oldid=1196567140"