Jump to content

Talk:Paris–Roubaix/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • well sourced
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    • neutral
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    • no banners
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • no edit wars
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • n/a, annual updates obviously required, but currently up to date.

An interesting well sourced article, no problems against quickfail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • History
    • I have made some copy-edits, but more are required. I didn't dive in for fear of distorting the accuracy.
  • Examples:
  • The Church objected, suggesting that riders would not have time to attend mass and spectators might not bother to attempt attendance. presume this is the Catholic church, do you have the name of a local bishop or curé who objected? This might be better. Is it covered in the citation?
    • I don't know if it's covered in the citation. I did not write very much of this article (you may have assumed, not unreasonably, that I was a primary author of the article, but I'm not). I don't know how to revise this. Nosleep break my slumber 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) OK, will assume good faith on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote the original piece. No, the name of the bishop or whatever has long vanished. It is indeed the Roman Catholic church. This being France, there would be no English Catholic church (official name, I understand, of the Church of England). The Catholic church in France is known simply as the Catholic church, there being no need to distinguish it, but we're probably into petty semantics here: Les woodland (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)les woodland[reply]
  • News of Breyer's ride to Roubaix may have spread. Half those who entered did not turn up at the Brassérie de l'Espérance, the race headquarters. These sentences do not sit well together. I presume that the Brasserie was the finish? Please clarify. Or are we talking about people who didn't turn up at the start. Please re-write this paragraph for clarity.  Done
  • The starters did include Maurice Garin, winner of Desgrange's first Tour, suggest, who went on to win Desgrange's first Tour,
  • Garin came third, 15 minutes behind Josef Fischer, the only German to have won. Suggest ...the only German to have won the race.
  • Only four finished within an hour. This reads as if the whole race only took an hour! Prseume you mean within an hour of the leader or similar.
  • Seeking cobbles is relatively recent. It began at the same time in Paris-Roubaix and the Ronde van Vlaanderen, when widespread improvements to roads after the second world war brought realisation that the character of both races were changing. Perhaps seeking the challenge of cobbles... would be better.
  • Pierre Mauroy, when he was mayor of Lille [Roubaix is virtually a suburb of Lille], virtually is a weasel word, perhaps best drop it in favour of something more neutral.
  • Ok, I'll leave it for there and carrying on reviewing tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Course
  • 28 - Troisvilles to Inchy First used 1987. The highest of all the cobbles at 136m. Jean Stablinski memorial on the right. The section drops 900m at two per cent. Suggest: First used in 1987. The highest of all the cobbled sections at 136m. Jean Stablinski memorial on the right. The section drops at two per cent for 900m.
  • 23 - Capelle sur Ecaillon to Buat I am confused by the following bit. How does it get to 400m in height? What is the 7 500m I thought the whole length was 1700m?
  • 18 - Trouée d'Arenberg A memorial to Stablinski stands at one end of the road.[ Which end. I like the detail here, but it shows up the lack of detail in other sections.
  • 12 - Orchies, chemin des Prières, and chemin des Abattoirs disjointed in the last 600m What does disjointed mean?
  • 5 - Camphin-en-Pévèle Fairly disjointed throughout but appalling in the last 300m. Disjointed? Please find another word to replace appalling which is un-encyclopaediac and a weasel word.
  • 3 - Le Carrefour de l'Arbre to Gruson Length - 1,100m Its 2.1 km are rated... Which is correct? Likewise: This section drops from 50m to 45m in a straight line. The first half is a series of corners, then along irregular pavé towards Luchin. The second half finishes at the Café de l'Arbre restaurant and has more even pavé. A sharp turn towards Gruson signals the start of sector 3, although this has sometimes been included in sector 4. Which is correct?
  • 2 - Hem sometimes disjointed?
  • 1 - Roubaix, Espace Charles Crupelandt - The final cobbles For consistency can we start with the length?
      • I think there's a fair bit of OR in the course section. I'll revise to fit the two used references (and perhaps others), but that's going to take a little more time than I have right now - I'll try tomorrow. Nosleep break my slumber 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made other copy edits, please check that I haven't distorted the meaning. Also please make all phrases such as left-turn, left turn, left hand turn, 90-degree, 90 degree, etc consistent throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we still need the table that starts the course section as nearly all of the information is duplicated? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycles
  • Records
I removed duplicate info, emphasized the respective record, and moved this section to the Winners and records-section. lil2mas (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Good, tat's better now it is merged/ Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done lil2mas (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, all OK Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
    • This broadly conforms to MOS, but I think the records section should be merged with Winners and records to remove duplication. Also I query the necessity for the table at the head of the course section as the information becomes duplicated. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the records-sections, but I think the course-table should stay. It's a short summary table, and could be used as a "navigator", meaning that the names should wikilink to their respective section in the article, rather than to the cities! What do you think? lil2mas (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, that would be good if it is wikilinked to the sections. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • The article is fairly well referenced but there are some sections that need referencing which I shall come to.
    • Ref #42, #43, #56 need properly formatting, at the moment they are just bare html. Ref 26# doesn't support the statement and links to a blog section of velo-club.net I assume good faith in the references to print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, though I feel a little uncomfortable about the replacement of ref #26. I found the same statement (that early races were run behind pacers) in the article Hippolyte Aucouturier, where it's backed by a print source, which, naturally is a print source I've not read. I went ahead and included it, if it's a problem say so. Nosleep break my slumber 03:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) References OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Ref #12 & #13 are non-reliable sources, and are not necessary as ref #14 is fine. Ref 26# doesn't support the statement and links to a blog section of velo-club.net. #Ref #63 can we have more detail of this disappeared internet site - original url and date of access? Or could a replacemnet be found. Other observations all of the observations need citations. Work in 2008 this section is completely un-referenced. Les forçats du pavé the quote needs a citation. Cobbles of honour this section is completely un-referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to the best of my ability. Nosleep break my slumber 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Broad
    b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
I'm actually going to list that image for deletion. It's not needed here (good god doesn't this article have enough images anyway?) and its only other use is in Tafi's article. Fair use images of a living person (especially when used just to show what the person looks like, as in Tafi's article) are a no-no. Nosleep break my slumber 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 Done Nosleep break my slumber 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • OK, I am placing the article on hold. It may need more than 7 days which should be OK.

If you have queries about my comments please place them here or after the comment. I shall be watching this page and the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for a further seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ok, Thank you very much for your hard work. A good article about a great road race. Congratulations. 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paris–Roubaix/GA1&oldid=1136244669"