Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2024

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2024 [1].

Afrique Victime

Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to point out any mistakes.

I edited this article since July 4 and expanded it thoroughly with all the sources I can find on the internet, amounting to 50 tabs. The article has been fixed by multiple experienced editors and is able to have a FAC nomination. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Drmies: and @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: for whom were involved in the previous GA nomination. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also going to tag @Wuju Daisuki: since he was involved in the PR. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a woman, but thanks. I won't give a long review, but I think the article looks much better than it did when I peer reviewed it. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced with FA nominations, but as the GA nomination reviewer, I would say it hasn't reached FA level. During my review, TheNuggeteer addressed all the concerns I voiced, but did not go beyond that, and it doesn't look like he has made substantial edits since then. I copyedited the article just enough to meet the GA style criteria, but as others are saying, the structure of the article is still quite repetitive, which will have to be fixed. That being said, I think the sourcing is good, and the article thoroughly includes the coverage about the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination for obvious problems and reasons, thank you for all your suggestions to make this an FA! Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: the nominator would like to withdraw. 750 h+ 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FAC, but I think I must oppose on several issues relating to prose quality. There is excessive duplication of subject matter, especially the mentions of historical colonialism and political instability in Nigeria, which are confusingly spread across several sections. The prose itself is clumsy and occasionally contradictory, and contains various quotes from Moctar interspersed oddly throughout the article. The "Reception" section feels unnecessarily short for the detail provided in the sources, and would benefit from being rewritten following the advice at WP:RECEPTION. In summary, I don't feel that several of the FA criteria are met; the article would benefit from a structural rethink, possibly followed by a copyedit from an experienced editor with a focus on concision. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, recommend withdrawal and WP:GAR (or WP:PR).

The lead does not summarise the article
"Its genre is assouf ("desert blues)." where's the other quotation mark
"It was recorded in multiple places, including Niamey, Niger." where else?

This article has received a nice ce from other editors, but I think this requires another PR in order to become an FA. 750 h+ 01:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by oppose from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

At this time the nominator cannot be expected to deliver a Featured Article quality, let alone the "brilliant prose" criterion, when they can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page. I feel like the nominator should be working on further improving their grammar and writing skills, not making FA (and GA) nominations in vain. I'm sorry if I'm being a wet blanket/douchebag here, but it's necessary, if this article is to become a top-notch page. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that grammar is important for an article, but I'd warn against critiquing that the reviewer "can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page." Keep in mind that many Wikipedia editors are not native English speakers, and try to clean up grammar without censuring people's errors. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nessesary to point out, however. Grammar is a key part of the criteria that needs to be correct and consistent, if not copyedited by the reviewer or someone else. TheBritinator (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also

I'm not convinced this should even be a GA (sourcing problems, formatting problems, verbosity, repetition, etc.). This comes after User:AirshipJungleman29's edits, and after few series of edits I made earlier. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 September 2024 [2].

Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a hymn, or four hymns? I have a long history with it, DYK in 2011, GA in 2017 and a peer review in 2019. Today I was invited to the 15 years society and feel like celebrating, with this hymn which - in Luther's version - has been part of family functions. I made the article my story today, and that 2011 DYK explains two hymns (... that the first stanza of the hymn "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist", asking the Holy Spirit for the right faith most of all, is documented in German in the 13th century, and the later three relate to faith, love and hope?), while there are two others in Catholic tradition. Please explore. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(GL).mid: what's the copyright status of the arrangement?

File:Berthold_von_Regensburg.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(WA).jpg, File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(1653).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Reading through; very interesting and aligning to the type of early modern music I prefer. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, and for copy-editing! I am not yet convinced of some changes in the lead, admitting that change is needed, just how?

The first stanza came from a leise: no, not really. There was a leise, and it became the first stanza of all three later versions, - how can we say that better?
I am reluctant to call a 1524 work "modern", even if it was 300 years more "modern" than the leise.
There are three versions in today's hymnals, two from the 16th century (Luther, Vehe) and one from the 20th (Thurmair). Perhaps we need to find a way to say that at the very beginning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now tried to write a new first paragraph to outline the relation of the three versions. Please check, but perhaps first read the body to know what the lead should summarize. History: when I began the article, I only thought of Luther's hymn. I remember how surprised I was to learn that singing in German had this long a tradition, - somehow I had thought it was all in Latin until Luther came along ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but perhaps first read the body ' agh, you've lost me now. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand, will resume over weekend....Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship: prose

Lead is rather repetitive:
- " in German, which all share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise" // "The first stanza in all versions is a leise in German from the 13th century."
- "wrote three additional stanzas in 1524" // "In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas."
- " Maria Luise Thurmair wrote a continuation based on this in 1972" // "Maria Luise Thurmair; her version was published in 1972"
It also needs copyediting for prose—I have corrected a couple of minor errors, but sentences like "They also have in common that they use its medieval melody." and "The request to the Holy Spirit for the right faith especially ("um den rechten Glauben allermeist") suited Luther's theology." are stilted and/or confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, thank you for reviewing! Please see above: Ceoil pointed out that the lead lacked an overview of the versions, which was added late, and made some things repetitive. Should the first (new) paragraph be more condensed to avoid that, for example saying only that there were also Catholic expansions, or rather some details cut in what follows?

Thank you for the corrections. I'd appreciate help with phrasing. Trying something for the melody, please check. I will have to think about the theology. I think that it's rather commonly known that Luther promoted a theology of sola fide, faith alone, - do you think it should be expanded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion (I may have misinterpreted some content, so don't feel like this is a demand): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

concise lead

"Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" (We now implore the Holy Ghost) is the title of several hymns in German which share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise, and its medieval melody. This stanza alludes to the Latin sequence for Pentecost, Veni Sancte Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit). Widely known, it was used as a procession song and in sacred plays.

In his 1523 liturgy, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther recommended using the leise regularly in church services; it contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology. In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas, first published in Wittenberg in the same year as part of the Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. His version's themes of faith, love and hope are appropriate for general occasions and funerals. not only Pentecost. Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations. It inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping.

Alternative continuations of the hymn have appeared in Catholic hymnals. Luther's contemporary Michael Vehe, a Dominican friar and theologian, published his version, also with three added stanzas, in 1537. His hymn was revised and expanded by Maria Luise Thurmair in 1972. Both Luther's and Thurmair's hymns have remained in use into the 21st century.

Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.

I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I am far from claiming professionalism.) I trimmed the lead to no repetition (but see the danger of sandwiching text when too short). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I have added four {{cn}} tags to uncited material. You should look to combine short paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH.
It would be useful for all readers if a translation of the verses into English were provided. The {{Verse translation}} template may be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll look into the first point later. Translations: sadly, I didn't see a free translation. Bach Cantatas Website (external link) comes with a good one, but from 2015. The various hymnary pages don't offer text, possibly for the same reason. But I now found this and will use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one of the required citations. Looking for something online for Vehe's version in the Limburg hymnal (which I own), I found nothing for that fact, so may add a book ref. I found, however, interesting other sources leading to some rewrite, patience please. The short explanation of what the Vehe hymn says: call it OR, - it's my rendering in English of what it says in German, instead of a translation of that version which - I'm afraid - we will not find. I'll move the publications in other languages to translations, and add more publications of the Luther version. Before all that, there's garden work and dealing with the article of a cellist who died - my plan for today. I can ping you when I'll get to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(The cellist is on the Main page. Today's topic was a conductor, still far from how the article should be.) I added a ref for the 1975 Gotteslob, and modified to Vehe being the editor of the hymnal, not necessarily the author. As for what that version means in English: would it help if I'd write individual phrases in German with their translation, as for Thurmair's? For hers that seemed necessary because the English is under copyright (but can be seen in the "Fischer F" ref). - Too tired to search for more publications and translations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airship, by now I managed to use Fischer (encyclopedia of hymns) more. I also think I found a better way of referring to it, listing its subpages as pages instead of new references. It led to more versions, and a complete rearrangement of the article structure: trying to avoid level-four headers, I dropped the distinction of Text and Music and then subdivided, changing to one of Leise - Protestant - Catholic, putting all music and translations under Protestant, because I noticed those only for the Luther version. I hope to expand the translation corner which is still short. I found a general ref for many appearances in songbooks and hymnals and wonder if I should mention some of those. What do you think. Do you know the verse template enough to find a way to avoid the excessive white space that comes with it - the more stanzas the more it seems? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

I'll gladly review; however, know that my liturgical knowledge is very limited, so much of my review will just be about the prose rather than comprehensiveness. I'll review once Airship's comments are resolved, so I don't say anything they already said. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Saving a spot for later; I'm working on a source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source eview. I havae a busy weekend with company and concert, so just brief replies at the moment, and no major changes to the references right now. When I wrote the article, I had access to the volume of Liederkunde written by Hahn, similar to this one but can't find it any more. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Citation numbers from this revision.

In the interest of consistency, convert the references styled liked citation 34 to full citations in the reference list with short footnotes pointing at them.
I would recommend adding archive links to all web sources.
Adding translated titles using the |trans-title= parameter would be preferable, but all non-English citations must use the |language= parameter.
There needs to be consistency for where the page numbers are located. Some sources confusingly have pages in both the short footnotes and the full citations. Recommend moving them all to the footnotes.
The books should all have publication locations or none of them, for consistency.
Citation 25 needs a page number or section title provided using the |loc= parameter.
What makes Fischer 2007 a high-quality reliable source? (I was unable to track down the author due to their extremely common name, unfortunately!)
It's a research project of the University of Freiburg, Fischer is one of the co-editors. --GA
In Becker 2022: Switch to {{cite journal}}. Oldenburg University → University of Oldenburg Press. I'm not a fan of the PDF download URL, I would recommend removing. Add |doi=10.25619/BmE_H20224 in any case.
Recommend removing the URL from Hahn 2000 as Google Books does not actually provide access to that source.
Kluge 1975 needs a bunch of formatting improvements but, more importantly, it appears to be a dictionary and not a secondary source. Does it actually verify anything in that sentence other than the meanings of the words? Does the inclusion of that information constitute due weight?
I'm rather confused by Korth 2004, which has the same ISBN and URL as Hahn 2000 but seems to be a different publication?
In Randel 1996: link Harvard University Press.

I appreciate your patience with my review, Gerda! Still going through at the moment and might be back with a few more comments later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17

Hello Gerda, and I apologize for the number of the below comments seeing as you invited me to comment. I've gotten through the first part of the article, and unfortunately I found it quite difficult to parse and understand. Some time could be spent simplifying the information we're telling readers, as well as reducing the number of translated words to make is less complicated to read.

First of all (allermeist) thank you for copy-editing. As said, this is an "old" article, deals with historic events, in two languages different from English, - great to have feedback from a native speaker! Thank you also for the time to go into details. I reverted two things (of the many) and hope the edit summaries were clear. --GA

Overall question: Why is {{langr}} used so often? The typical {{lang}} sets off translated text in italics so it's easier for a reader to parse.
I recently was introduced to it, and found it a blessing to use instead of saying "italic=no" each time. I was trained that things separated by quotation marks and coming with the lang template don't need italics also. Incipits of hymn, common Latin phrases that became part of English, - such things. --GA
Frankly, I don't think I read a single Latin phrase in the upper part of the article that I'd consider "common". :-p I'd recommend using italics to ease a reader's understanding for anything except when it's something like a song title, which then get those quotation marks. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"retaining its text as a first stanza": do you mean "retained the first stanza"?
No. There was no first stanza, there was the leise. He used its text completely, making it the first of four stanzas. How would you word it? --GA
Got it. I tried making an edit to make that clear. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"using melodies derived from its medieval tune": what medieval tune? That isn't previously mentioned.
We are still in the lead, and to devote a sentence to the tune seems to be undue weight. I was encouraged to trim the lead (further up). --GA
I get the desire to keep the lead short, but it also needs to be understandable, and I don't understand what "medieval tune" we're referring to. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional context around the Protestant/Catholic split may be needed. Otherwise, a reader will not understand the importance of Martin Luther's using it.
I am not sure, for the same reason - keep it concise. We have a good article about the Reformation, and what of it should be summarised, and how? Would you think of a background section?
This could be as short as "when Protestants split from Catholicism" or similar! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "a song for the dying"? Was it used in funerals?
The German term is "Sterbelied" which implies that it is sung with someone dying. The term appears almost 70 times in the German Wikipedia but has no article. It's also used for poems written by a poet who was approaching death (Hildebrand's Sterbelied), an example for a Sterbelied is "O Welt, ich muss dich lassen". I never heard of a similar thing in English. Help? --GA
Got it. I added a suggested rewording to the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's a procession song?
a song sung during a procession --GA
"The leise contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology ...": what's the "right faith"?
depends for whom as the different versions show ;) --GA
I'm afraid I still don't get it. Was the 'right faith' Protestantism"? A certain form of that? A generic call to follow the 'right faith' that Luther could then define for his listeners? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead may benefit from a straight divide between Protestant and Catholic usage. Weaving the two together makes for a somewhat whiplash-y experience.
sorry, that word is new to me ;) - When I wrote the article - see infobox - I wanted to write about Luther's song, in an attempt to have articles about his hymns (in 2017 I believe, when 500 years of Reformation were remembered). Only later did I realise that the other versions should perhaps also be mentioned. --GA
Sorry! I just mean that it goes back and forth, while instead you could mention the Christian schism and then individually go through its usage in each sect after that. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Catholic use was discontinued after the Baroque period, but the hymn reappeared in a modified version in Heinrich Bone's Cantate! hymnal in 1647. It became used more after the 1938 collection Kirchenlied ...": several points here.
- Most people, including me, do not know offhand when the Baroque period started and began. Can we use a year or even a rough decade instead?
- I see from our article that the Baroque period ended in 1750, but despite being discontinued by then it appeared in a hymnal in 1647? That's confusing.
  I apologize for a severe typo in that number which I corrected to 1847 as the body has. - When the Baroque period ended depends on who looks at what, so I'd try to avoid one year. Yes in music it's probably with Bach's death in 1750. --GA
  Could we put a rough decade on it? E.g. "... discontinued after the Baroque period (roughly the 1750s) ..." ? And I think you may have forgotten to fix the 1647 year in the lead. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was discontinued, it wasn't later "used more" -- it was "used again".
  Sorry that I didn't find a way to say what I wanted. It appeared in 1847, but it wasn't used much (if at all, we don't know). It appeared in 1938, and was used - how much we still don't know. It was used more later, and from personal experience I'd say: still not much. People love and sing "Der Geist des Herrn erfüllt das All" by the same Ms. Thurmair, even Protestants. That has become e song suitable for ecumenical service. Where I live we have had one every year on Pentecost Monday for the decades I live there, and we had Luther's version only once (and people not knowing it complained about its "old" language, and Thurmair's version also only once, and I achieved that the last (counter-reformation) stanza wasn't sung ;)
  I need a break, RL, more later today. --GA
  Not a major point, so we can drop this. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages ...": should this sentence begin with something like "In the modern day, ..." ?
Doesn't the present tense imply that? (I was trained to avoid "currently", "today", "modern times" ... --GA
True, that's MOS:CURRENTLY. Maybe "As of the 2020s"? The present tense does imply the shift to today, but I'm afraid it's too subtle for many to pick up on. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It has inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping.": We can simplify this sentence by saying "from the 14th century into the present day", and removing the unnecessary bluelinks to our general articles on Renaissance music and Contemporary classical music that don't immediately benefit readers.
We could but specific names give more an idea of what kind of composers would use it, without long explanation. --GA
I think general readers won't know who those composers are, and this is the lead, so I'd recommend shortening. In the end, it's your call. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It was first a Sterbelied, a song for someone dying.": The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.
You think readers would remember? --GA
I think readers don't need to know the translation. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As in the conclusion of Veni Sancte Spiritus ("da salutis exitum") ...: The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.
"The concern is "most of all" (allermeist) the "right faith" (rechten glouben) ...: Like the lead, what does the "right faith" mean?
replied there --GA
"The person praying is aware that human life is transient and believes that the true home is Heaven ...": What does "true home" mean in this context?
The German word that I tried to translate is "Heimat" which doesn't have an exact translation. What would you suggest. "heimfahrn aus diesem Elende" means "return home from this exile", not easier by modern-day Elend meaning misery. Help welcome - this is talking theology, so difficult. --GA
And I'm not particularly familiar with theology, so I'm struggling too. How about "... human life is transient and believes that they will find eternal life in Heaven, ..." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Protestant Reformers tried to continue medieval tradition": Does this refer to medieval Catholic traditions or something else?
This was added late for the context that Luther, like other reformers, had no intention to throw traditions over board, almost the opposite. I simply took it from a source. The word "Catholic" had a different meaning after the Reformation resulted in different denominations. --GA
Gotcha. How about a couple sentences like this, assuming it's covered by the source: "Although Protestants were seeking significant liturgical changes within the Catholic Church, they did not seek to overturn most religious traditions. For example, when Martin Luther issued a 1523 liturgy for services, he recommended including three traditional German hymns: "Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet" ... etc. etc. " Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" and "Christ ist erstanden" (Christ is risen) are the only medieval songs still in use.": in use by who?
sung in "modern day" services, - or what would you think "use" means? Again, I took that from a source. --GA
Sorry for the ambiguity. I mean by which religion, and if possible by what kinds of congregations (w.g. traditional ones?) in what geographical areas. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The leise had a long tradition.": I suspect this should say "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" vs. "the leise" to specify we're talking about a specific leise, and not them generally.
We would still have to add "the leise" to not be ambiguous, and teach me English: could "the song had a long tradition" mean "songs" in general? --GA
I re-read this and think I missed why this actually sounded off to me. I'd still use the full name, but because it wouldn distinguish which one you're talking about from the three things you listed in the previous sentence. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Its topics of the right faith (rechter Glaube, veram fide) and the thought of the time of death must have appealed to Luther. He had mentioned veram fide in an early sermon about the leise (1509 or 1510), and promoted salvation by faith alone (sola fide)":
- There's no need to translate "right faith" again, and "veram fide" should just be "right faith".
  "veram fide" would literally mean "true faith".
- We can remove "sola fide" and just link "faith alone".
  We can, but would loose a short illustration of how much Luther relied on medieval Latin tradition. --GA
  It's your call in the end, although I'd argue that it's far too subtle to convey the point you're trying to make. I certainly missed it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"... as "Du wertes Licht" (You esteemed light), "Du süße Lieb" (You sweet love) and "Du höchster Tröster" (You highest comforter).: these translations don't line up with the translations given in the full translation above it.
No, and if they did, they didn't have to be there. The translation given next to the poem is a singable English version, which means that aspects of rhyme and number of syllables have prominence over literal meaning. --GA
- As always, it's your call whether to act on these comments. But as a general reader coming in with no background on this material, I was expecting the translations to line up and was confused when they didn't. E.g. "Thou precious Light" does not sound like the same thing as "You esteemed light" :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to shorten the name of the leise to "Nun bitten wir", I would prefer that you start doing that in the lead to prepare readers
I guess I'd then rather have the full name consistently. --GA
"... which mention its manifold gifts ...": what are manifold gifts? I suspect this sentence clause could be dropped without impact on readers.
I gave it a link to Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. --GA
"His three stanzas can be seen as related to "Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung", the theological virtues of faith, love and hope, which Paul the Apostle expressed in his letter, 1 Corinthians 13:13.": We can simplify this sentence, and "can be seen" needs in-text attribution. E.g. "Historian Michael Fischer has said that his three stanzas relate to the theological virtues of faith, love and hope."
I suspect this is not one historian's view ;) - I see the same, and would you not? (It was even the DYK fact, DYK? ... which was years before I even looked at the Fischer source.) I can check if others see the same, but not today. --GA
Ideally then, we'd add citations to those additional similar views. The passive voice the sentence currently uses implies that there is more than one. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it to the beginning of the "Publication" section. I'll try to return and look through the rest of the article, but for the moment I hope this gives you some ideas on how to improve the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I like the discussion, - thank you for taking the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replies, read and mostly understood, but I have some things on my mind with more urgency (translate an article of a person who died, do a peer review as promised last week ...). I'll reply when I get some time of rest. It may be archived by then, but will help the article in the long run, transforming it from simply about one song to something like the development of congregational singing in different denominations over centuries ;) - I fixed that year, sorry to have overlooked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This has been open for three weeks and we currently don't have a single support for promotion. Unless this changes within the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. I recommend that you ping the above two users who expressed an interest in reviewing this later. 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs)

Don't be afraid, just archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SN 54129

Suggest dropping the second 'German' from the lead sentence: it's clear what the language is from the first usage.
Thank you for your comments! - This one: I'm not sure I understand. In the second sentence, if I drop it, we'd say "one of the oldest hymns" which would be wrong, - there were much older ones, in Latin and other languages. --GA
"...several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations": better to mention some of the different languages ("such as..."). and then something like "as well as receiving various translations into English".
I'm not sure that mentioning Danish and Spanish (for examples) would make much difference, other than a more complex sentence. --GA
In the Luther 1524 section you abbreviate the piece to ""Nun bitten wir". This is good, as the title is a bit of a mouthful and interrupts the flow a little. But suggest you abbreviate it sooner, after the first full usage in the lead.
One of the reviewers above thought that it was not good ;) - It's not much left of the meaning in the short version. --GA
"It was first a Sterbelied": is that as in, "It was originally a Sterbelied..."?
Sounds good. With English not my first (or original?) language, such nuances often escape me. Why would I use four syllables when I can use one? --GA
Perhaps quote the line from S Paul in full.
You mean: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ"? In that KJV English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"from the chant of the sequence": suggest "from the sequence's chant".
taken, thank you --GA
Link Processional (song).
used Processional hymn (the other is a redirect) --GA
"the only medieval songs still in use": In wot? Churches, public performances, processions?
Does it matter? Churches then. - In performances, your hear a lot of historic stuff, - but I thought that "use" means something regular or common. --GA
"The leise had a long tradition": Surely, that's been pretty much established by this point in the article.
While that is true, the point is that it was something positive for Luther, who wasn't someone who wanted everything new and different. Help how to express that welcome ;) --GA
"Protestant Reformers tried to continue the medieval tradition": tried here implies "attempted unsuccessfully", whereas it would seem to have been successfully continued—particularly if it's still being played today? Suggest "Protestant Reformers continued..."
Which better word/phrase would you suggest, related to the previous response? --GA
The line "Luther expanded "Nun bitten wir" by three stanzas, addressing the Holy Spirit three more times..." duplicates the last line of the Protestant expansion section ("Luther expanded the leise "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" by three stanzas, addressing the Holy Spirit three more times."); can these be merged?
I shortened the second time. --GA
"The focus is on the aspects": link to Aspect (religion); (also per Hamlet, of course, "That from her working all his visage wanned/Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect", or Byron's 'She walks in Beauty', "And all that’s best of dark and bright/Meet in her aspect and her eyes", or even Dennis Wheatley from The Devil Rides Out, "Our Lord... in his aspect as the Redeemer"), unlike the following two times you use the word in its usual, non-theological capacity.
Thank you, I didn't even know that meaning, let alone the article. - Having read it, I'm not sure that it helps to clarity ;) --GA
As a technical term, link Metre (music).
done --GA
Have you fielded queries re. SATBB and SSAATB at your previous FAs? If so, apologies for retreading old ground. But no one knows what this means. Link—and preferably gloss, using em dashes, footnotes or parentheticals of your choice—to SATB.
Sorry, I just forgot that it was never linked. I also put it in brackets trying to indicate that it's necessary for the meaning. --GA
"The Catholics": sounds slightly... perhaps "the Catholic Church", as it was not so much the personal choice of an individual Catholic as a new policy directed from Trent. In a similar vein, suggest adopted 9or your choice" instead of "countered" which, in a certain light, might be seen to imply a lack of agency from the CC and that it was purely reactive in nature. In fact, it's probably worth mentioning [[counter-reformation][] somewhere here so it's clear that the hymn's early modern context is a European-wide distancing from old ideas.
I don't know enough if it was an official "countering" of the Catholic Church, or individual efforts. I had a link to Counter-Reformation in place until I noticed that Vehe's hymnal was before the dating of the movement. --GA
Do we know why Thurmair "completely ignored" the hymn's treatment of death in 1975? Was it personal? A reflection of the times perhaps? (E.g., I note the Red Army Faction had severely upped its campaign that year.)
I don't know, wish I did. - You may have noticed that I had a few other topics that kept me busy (Alexander Goehr where a massive rewrite was needed, then BWV 78 because of a time wish.), - there was one source talking about the meetings in preparation of the 1975 hymnal, which took years. I can look at that again, but not soon. --GA
Nice work, Gerda, considering I have no known taste in music at all :) SerialNumber54129 12:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for interesting aspects! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 September 2024 [3].

Me at the zoo

Nominator(s): TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very first video on YouTube. You could say it was the start of one and many, many other Internet stories. After I reviewed it for GA, I was convinced this article could be a featured article, considering that this video's, and therefore YouTube's, 20th anniversary is about to come. After two peer reviews, I'm certain this article is prepared to be a featured article. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Will leave a review here. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked sources for verifiability and did not notice any major grammar issues. I would, however, suggest cutting down the number of quotes.

Mention the video's reception and legacy briefly in the lede.
- Done.
Ref 1 only mentions that Chen studied at the UIUC.
- Changed (although Karim's page states that he went to UIUC too).
"Karim stated that inspiration for the platform came from the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami" is mentioned in all three cited references. I suggest removing one of the Business Insider sources because texts in both Business Insider sources are the same.
- Whoops! Removed the 2024 edition.
"The video was recorded by his high school friend, Yakov Lapitsky" is cited by two Time sources. I suggest removing one of them.
- Decided to move the 2015 Time story to the sentence mentioning the exact time the video was released.
The rest of the Background section is verifiable.
- Nice.
The Reception and Legacy sections are both verifiable.
- Niiiiice.

Support ~~then~~ once the number of quotes get cut down. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, but this isn’t ready for FAC. Structurally it is a bit of a mess. As this article is about a video that was posted, I wouldn’t expect to see the posting information in the background section, but in a release section. The Reception section is indistinguishable from the Legacy one, and both of them are quote farms. Karim’s status is a bit unclear: he is shown as a founder and then shown criticising YouTube’s actions, while readers are still thinking he’s connected.

Some of the grammar is also a little clunky. “The 19-second video, recorded by his high school friend, Yakov Lapitsky, features Jawed Karim” hides Karim’s name too far down the sentence when it should be up front. Another example is “After Hurley registered the website's domain on February 14, 2005,[5] "Me at the zoo" was uploaded on April 23, 2005,[6][7] at 8:27 PM”: it’s odd to have “after x”, and then an event three months later. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the "reception" and "legacy" sections. Based on the titles alone, I would expect "reception" to cover what people thought of the video/its release at the time it actually happened, and "legacy" to cover retrospective views from potentially years later, but as far as I can see both sections cover the latter and there's nothing anywhere about what (if anything) people thought of it at the time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should definitely close this nomination early... I didn't see this coming.

TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on the structure too, that should definitely be addressed. Also, the number of quotes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2024 [4].

2022 Tour de France Femmes

Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.

This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck! Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some polite pings - @AirshipJungleman29 who took part in the first review, and @Reidgreg who did the very excellent job of copyediting the article! Turini2 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :) Turini2 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reidgreg

As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.

I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris. If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.
and not being hard enough for the professional peloton Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.
pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.
As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the second and third editions of the race?

That's it for now. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA 2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications. Turini2 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have any further comments or thoughts on this article. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
"French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
"with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!

The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.

Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.

Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.

Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.

Removed.

Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g. La Route de France. It's complicated!

That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.

Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.

Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.

I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.

Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.

Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
- Piped to clarify
"Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
- Fixed
"We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
- I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA 2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.

"Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
- Fixed
Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
- Rephrased
"with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
- Clarified

I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild hi - as per above, I've made those edits and redrafted the lead substantially - now 267 words in length (3 paragraphs) rather than 369 words. Turini2 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a fix loop. For example

'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event." ' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
"chasing back after a mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)

Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC. Turini2 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you consider these points to be resolved? Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gog the Mild does your oppose still stand? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

The article uses the following main images:

They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour also needs to end with a period. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended and fixed, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, the article passes the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

At four weeks in, the article has failed to progress towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I encourage more people to engage with this article? I've been pretty on the ball here and responded to changes requested? Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

A marker for now. I'll be along shortly for a review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a decent article - nothing here that would stop it being an FA as far as I am concerned. I think you've done well in explaining the technical side in most places (I know nothing about cycling except that it's a damned uncomfortable for of transportation, but I still managed to understand it).Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

Hello! Some initial comments after a read-through (disclaimer: I have no real knowledge of cycling)!

The early breakaway was caught in the closing kilometres, with the stage win determined by a bunch sprint. - I agree with Gog the Mild above in that there are several cases where I can guess at the meanings of terms but am not certain of them. Both "breakaway" and "bunch sprint" are not perfectly clear to me. "Bunch sprint" could use a link to the glossary and both could use a very brief explanation.
On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton - Suggest changing to (and linking) Col du Petit Ballon, or Petit Ballon if the sentence is referring to the mountain itself instead of the pass.
A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel - Suggest linking to Col du Platzerwasel.
Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace. - Suggest linking to Col du Ballon d'Alsace.
van Vleuten suffered a mechanical - Gog the Mild is correct above in that I wasn't quite sure what "a mechanical" referred to until I saw the link to it. I think this is worth instead calling "an issue with her bike", or even specifying what the issue was if there's coverage of it.
...Women's WorldTour races have a maximum stage length of 160 kilometres ... the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar... - Are these two instances of "WorldTour" referring to the UCI Women's World Tour? If so, is there a reason they are spelled differently?

Overall, I think my impressions are very close to that of Gog. It's a very good article and it's close to fulfilling FAC criteria! But it does read like an aficionado of the sport wrote it and so it suffers from a little bit of jargon. — Penitentes (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much – I've made most of these amendments.

Clarified wording in a few spots and rephrased.
Added links to climbs. Sources refer to them as Ballon d'Alsace and Petit Ballon (not Col), so I've left that wording w while linking them. Interestingly, I had considered adding links to them previously – but considered it to be MOS:OVERLINK !
Mechanical – sources usually specify what the issue is (i.e. a broken part of the bike, a puncture etc) but in this case, I can't find what the issue was – even in a specific article about the incident! I've amended to "an issue with her bike" as suggested.
Sources (and the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale) have WorldTour without a space, so I've followed their example. Unsure why the wikipedia article name differs!

Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good changes all! Assuming the source concerns below (incl. spotchecks) get addressed I will be a support. — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CyclingWeekly is a work title and should be italicized, and be consistent in whether it's presented as CyclingWeekly or cyclingweekly.com. Ditto letourfemmes.fr vs Tour de France Femmes, Cycling News vs cyclingnews.com... check throughout
- Fixed
  - Check wikilinking as well - eg you've got a wikilink on Tour de France Femmes in FN82 but not FN1. Why is there a publisher included in FN1 and not FN2? On 80 and not 81? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether "The" is included for publication titles that use it, and if so whether it is capitalized
- Fixed
  - Why The New York Times but just Washington Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include ISSN - for example FNs 60 and 75 are to the same publication but only one includes it
- Fixed.
FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN16, check throughout
- Fixed and checked.
FN6 is dead
- No thanks to the Washington Post not allowing archiving of their old posts! Found a fixed link, and changed citation to News.
Be consistent in whether author names are presented first or last name first
- One author name replaced with first/last.
FNs 12 and 13 are the same work. Dittos FNs 31 and 32 - check throughout
- In both cases, one citation is supporting a quote, and the other citation is supporting a wider sentence/paragraph. Believe this is correct approach?

- - Not sure I follow what you're saying here - why do you need different citations to the same source, rather than calling the same citation multiple times as you do elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I specifically want to include a quote in the citation? The quote then does not support the wider sentence/paragraph, so I've used the same source for a different citation. Another example would be FN71 and FN77 - same source, two separate quotes to support two separate bits. Turini2 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fn14: title doesn't match current source and archive link is non-functional
- Fixed
FN16 title also doesn't match source - check throughout
- I blame the autofill visual editor citations! Also fixed.

- - If that's the problem, it looks to be a broader one - eg FN46 has the same issue. Suggest checking the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been checked and fixed. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stopping there and oppose for the moment - lots of cleaning up needed for consistency and functionality of citations. Happy to revisit once that's done.~~ Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and fixes made - I believe that's everything checked and resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Resolved! Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote marks nested within quote marks should use single quotes

Wikilinking is still inconsistent - eg you've got Cycling Weekly linked in FN 33 but not 5 or 34. You can do all, none, or first, but not random.

Fn71 has reversed author too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced the first of all references (unless they have no article about said publication), and removed all other wikilinks. Reversed author fixed. Did not know about MOS:QWQ, also resolved! Turini2 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

As today the 2024 race kicks off, I will try to find time to review. My comments for the lead:

avec Zwift --> this only appears in the lead. Should also be in the body somewhere. With source.
took place from 24 to 31 July 2022 --> that 2022 is redundant. Already used at the start of the sentence
the first sentence should say that it was a cycling race for female professionals
I don't get what footnote a adds. Is this somehow controversial?
media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders --> why an Oxford comma after coverage, but not after teams?
polka-dot jersey or polka dot jersey?
so we have yellow jersey and GC link to the same place, which I think is fine, but then we should link polka dot and green and white jerseys as well. But then we end up with a sea of blue links. This would argue for not linking the yellow jersey.
which brings me to the jerseys: the white one is explained well, but the others not very well. Queen of the mountain needs to be explained, points classification needs to be explained, and the general classification is such a misleading name (suggests some sort of average) that it needs to mention fastests time.

More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority have been resolved.

in terms of the footnote, there were previous "women's Tour de France" races - called things like Tour de France Féminin. The footnote clarifies that the race is the first of the Tour de France Femmes races, as well as responding to a talk page comment. The first women's Tour de France took place in 1955, for example!
In terms of the jerseys, it's already substantially more detailed than featured article 2012 Tour de France - and I don't want the lead to become longer, given previous feedback. Expanded a little in the race overview.

Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that FA 2012 Tour de France as a reference. That helps.

I don't think a footnote is the right mechanism for explaining previous versions. This should be more prominent. I would take the first paragraph from Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, condense it a bit, and place it as the 2nd sentence. And then reposition the "followed years of campaigning" to connect it.
- Rewritten
held primarily in France, first held --> that duplication of held is not particularly elegant
- Fixed
Since the mid-1980s --> I don't get why the ones prior to the 1980s are not mentioned
using the Tour de France Féminin name from 1984 to 1989 --> other names should be listed as well
- Section rewritten
sexism and trademark issues --> sexism, and trademark issues
- Fixed
pushing for a women's Tour de France --> pushing for a revival of the women's Tour de France. Or a fully equivalent women's TdF. Or something distinguishable
- Fixed
The one-day stage race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[12] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place in a variety of locations across France in conjunction with the men's race --> this confused me. The "would take place" suggests to me that that was the plan, but actually did not happen. Then the location: first it is Paris and then it's all over France. Then the timing: first it is prior to final stage, then it is in conjunction.
- Fixed
'sharing the stage' --> why the ' and not "? Or no quotes at all?
- Fixed
welcoming the live TV coverage and visibility of taking place alongside the men's race --> not sure about visibility of taking place. Let's assume it was held in January. It would still be visible.
- Disagree - backed up by FN13, moved to clarify
However, La Course was criticised --> by whom? and when, given that initially there was praise
- Added, some criticism was straight away - but three sources in the article are 2018 and 2021
Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve --> when?
- There are sources for this from 2015 onwards (the two in the article are 2018 and 2021)
mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> but no one seemed to have argued for that, so that would not be pushing back
- That was the original push from Le Tour Entier, but I haven't included their detail of exactly what they wanted, too much detail.
Dutch rider Anna van der Breggen stating --> that's 3 times the verb to state in short succession
Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> sorry, 4
- I clearly am afraid of using synonyms! Have amended throughout. Some are still there because they work best!
"it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France" --> add comma: "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France",
- Fixed
Zwift had signed a four-year agreement to sponsor the race --> what is missing here is the bit about the official name
Fixed
The 24 teams which participated in the race[25] were --> why put the ref 25 mid-sentence?
- Fixed
selected by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organisers of the Tour --> we already knew that, so just selected by ASO
- Fixed
selected by --> is anything known about the selection process? Highest bidder?
- nope, literally selected by the organisers!
covering a total of 1,033 kilometres --> should this not also be mentioned in the lead? The FA 2012 Tour de France does have distance in the lead
- Added
on the same day as the final stage of the men's tour --> before or after the men's finish? Ah I see that's mentioned later. I would put that here
- Disagree, I feel the wording works better
Vosges mountains (including the longest, stage 5), and a summit finish on stage 8 at La Super Planche des Belles Filles in the Vosges --> this isn't working for me. That last Vosges thre me, because I thought "stages in the Vosges mountains" already had dealt with that
- Fixed
including the longest --> repetition including
- Fixed
as men's Tour de France --> as the men's Tour de France
- Fixed
as the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men --> may I suggest to remove this bit and instead add something like "whereas the maxima for men are x km and y days" after the paragraph's 1st sentence
- It's really complicated to explain... the summary of "the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men" is the simplest way of doing it IMO.
In the stage characteristics table it is odd to show the riders' nationality instead of their teams. This race is really about team tactics, not like the Olympics. I was surprised by this omission, as the lead rightfully listed the team name of the jersey winners rather than their nationality. But I see that 2012 Tour de France does the same. Was it discussed there? Or also overlooked?
- It's what all the cycling race articles do, so I'm following their practice!
Paris: Tour Eiffel --> Paris: Eiffel Tower
- The official name of the stage was Tour Eiffel, so no change.
tipped for the points classification --> tipped for winning the points classification
- Fixed
The Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> not sure if the classification is the thing being awarded
- Tweaked
The Queen --> perhaps add something like "similar to King of the Mountains in the men's race"
- Added
referencing --> this word choice looks a bit odd to me
- Fixed
was very positive --> given that there was criticism, I would drop the very
- Fixed
outsprinted Marianne Vos --> link Marianne Vos
- Fixed
In the final, Vos --> not sure if it is obvious to non-cycling fans what the final is. I would just avoid and simply use "at the finish"
- Fixed
to take the yellow and green jerseys --> was this straight on time or was there any bonus time involved?
- yes time bonuses and also clarifies
Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> remove (QoM) as this abbreviation was already given. One could question the need for QoM at all, if it is not used
- shortened
her to lose a minute and a half --> just to be clear, I'd say finish a minute and a half after the winner. Or whatever the difference
- Have changed to "lose time" otherwise it's duplicate text
was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar --> was the longest of the 2022 Women's WorldTour calendar
- fixed
due to bonuses --> is there no place to link to, explaining this?
- Unfortunately not, but I've added a little bit above
On the descent of the penultimate climb, a small group including Wiebes and Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx) crashed on the descent, --> that's descent twice
- Fixes
with everyone involved finishing the stage --> but everyone involved ultimately finished the stage
- Fixed
A group of fourteen riders that --> who instead of that?
- Fixed
had gained time ahead of the peloton in a breakaway --> "who had been ahead of the peloton"
- Half fixed, leaving breakaway pipe
by a large group of riders in a bunch sprint --> this makes me think earlier sprints were not bunch sprints. Is that true? If not, the term should be introduced earlier.
- Fixed
for the stage win as the race headed towards the mountains --> by adding "as the race headed towards the mountains" a non-informed reader may wrongly infer that there are some bonuses given to the winner of the last race prior to the mountains
- Removed
five category 1 climbs --> is 1 for easy or hard?
- Added wording to route
eventual winner of the general classification (GC) --> GC was already introduced and used
- Fixed
3,000 metres (9,800 ft) of vertical climbing --> isn't climbing by definition vertical?
- Fair point!
with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, --> for context it would be good to give the length of this stage somewhere
- Added
ensuring that the yellow jersey --> not necessarily. She could have caught up
- Rephrased
following her crash on stage 6 --> Given the position of this in the paragraph, I assume she started but then gave up. Perhaps better to provide some description of causality.
- rephrased
achieved an impressive stage win --> better to use quotes here, otherwise find more neutral words
- rephrased
Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM --> this is puzzling: how come van Vleuten did not become QoM, as she seemed to get to the tops first?
while Katarzyna Niewiadoma --> while Niewiadoma
- Fixed
rounded out the podium --> not sure the tone is right here, sounds more something a fanzine would write
- Fixed
Vos continued to hold the green jersey --> a little help for the reader would be good, something like "as only x points were awarded in this stage"
- rephrased
Stage 8 was the second mountain stage --> given that for stage 7 we got the number of meters of climbing, why not here as well?
stage of the Tour, --> now we have Tour, but earlier we had tour
- Fixed
The final climb to La Super Planche des Belles Filles was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long with an average gradient of 8.7 percent, with the final --> final duplication
- Fixed
With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, --> again, for context, how long was this stage?
- Fixed
Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace --> this tells the reader little about how long she was behind for, so some km reference would be good
- Fixed
attacked from the peloton --> I have never heard this expression
- Rephrased
She passed the remnants of the breakaway --> which breakaway? this was never mentioned
- have added

I'll check the last bit as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwininlondon - I'll take a look at this today, there are some great clarifying points in here thank you. I will note that some of this detail was previously cut from the article for being too much detail for summary style! Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here is the last batch.

Why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? What that FA does well in Classification leadership and minor prizes is lots of explaining all the classifications and extra info about price money. That FA does nt have reception info, but here I would put that in its own section
- Have added this - thank goodness the relevant regulations are still available - there are no secondary source for this.
In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> is there any kind of rule you're applying when you use GC and when general classification?
- Just that it's a conclusion - so I've just the full wording.
In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> feels repetitive to keep saying which team she is in
- Again, it's because it's the overall conclusion of the race, so it could be a bit that people jump to reading
In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) won the Tour de France Femmes --> can you really say it like that? How about: In the final general classification, van Vleuten came first
advantage over Vollering (SD Worx) --> advantage over Vollering
- As above
of almost four minutes while Niewiadoma was third at more than six and a half minutes down --> of almost four minutes, and of more than six and a half minutes over third-placed Niewiadoma
- Fixed
Vollering won the mountains classification --> this seems to me the best place to use Queen of the Mountains phrase
- Fixed
while Vos (Team Jumbo–Visma) won --> while Vos won
- As above
and the super-combativity award --> should be explained on what basis
- Added
won the young rider classification --> 2 issues here: 1) the lead explains how this works, so this should be explained here as well 2) the lead mentions the white jersey, so that should be mentioned here as well
- Added
Her rival Vollering considered that they --> who is they referring to?
- They'd is better?
fourth-place overall Juliette Labous --> fourth-placed Juliette Labous ?
- fixed
Cycling Weekly stating --> stating repetition
- Fixed
and L'Équipe stating --> and again
- Fixed
Race director Marion Rousse stated
- I left this one :)
with the 2024 edition of the race set to visit the Alps --> on Sunday this likely will have to go pas tense :)
- changed
the column headers in the table Classification leadership by stage should all be links, just like the 2012 FA
- Added
The 2012 FA has links for terms in the Legend table
- Added
Final general classification (11–109) table width is different from 1-10. Looks broken
- It's because of the longer team names in the 11-109 table, have amended table size so this (and the below text wrapping is fixed)
+ 1 h 00 min 49" --> + 1 h 00 min 49 s
- Fixed
+ 1 h 01 min 01 s --> for me, from here on the text in each row starts wrapping. This could easily be fixed
- As above
in the young rider table, number 8 has a slower time than number 9?
- Wrong way round! Fixed
This is just under half the audience of the men's tour --> I would use past tense and give the 2022 year
- Fixed
The 2012 FA has a section UCI World Tour rankings: does this not exist for the women?
- It does... but the data and sourcing on it is incredibly poor/hard to find. The best I've done in the past is reference who the new leader of the UCI Women's WorldTour is!

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments and fixes made, will come back to this later Turini2 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon believe these are all resolved, or have explanations why I disagree! Turini2 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at the lead. Found the following:

make a redirect for 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift
(officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) --> (officially 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift)
Various cycling races have been held as an equivalent to the Tour de France for women ... by the public, media, teams, and riders. --> May I suggest a bit tighter paragraph: Starting in 1955, various cycling races for women have been held similar to the Tour de France for men, under different names (for example, Tour de France Féminin, Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, La Course by Le Tour de France). Many of these were one-day races, unlike the three-weeks races for the men. The first edition of Tour de France Femmes followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France. The race drew large crowds, had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams, and riders. And then add the 3 week men's race to the Background section + source.
(French: maillot jaune) --> I don't see the value of adding this. It is never used again. And no other term is given in French. I would remove it.
who put in a consistent performance during the first six stages and finished in the top five on both mountain stages --> this is not menioned in the body of the article
following consistent stage finishes --> Not quite right: if she had been consistently last, she would not have gained many points. Plus where is this mentioned in the body of the article?
Canyon–SRAM won the team classification --> Canyon–SRAM should not be linked, was already linked

I will have a 2nd run through the body as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most changes made, with some tweaks to lead wording.

I haven't redirected the race + sponsor name, I didn't think that was the done thing for sporting events - e.g. FA 2008 Japanese Grand Prix does not have a 2008 Formula 1 Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix redirect, FA 2017 EFL Trophy final isn't 2017 Checkatrade Trophy final etc. Turini2 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I read WP:REDIR correctly, there really should be a redirect for this more specific form of the name. Looks like an oversight at the other FAs to me. But I'm happy to let this go. No users will be hurt.
and to shorter duration --> to does not look right to me

Fixed

It still looks wrong to me: now it reads as "under a shorter duration" which I have never heard of

Rephrased, is that better?

position she'd maintained --> MOS:CONTRACTIONS

Noted, deleted as per below

she'd maintained throughout the race --> this is still not what the body says. Everything in the lead should come from the body. I don't think you need to say this; there is no info in the lead about how number 1 and 2 did throughout the race either.

Fixed

following consistent stage finishes --> this is still not what the body says: nothing about Vos in stage 3 or 4. I would rephrase

Disagree, "after finishing in the top five on the first six stages, with wins on stages 2 and 6" later on in the article - that counts as consistent in my books!

We should just try to avoid any misunderstanding, so simply say "following top five finishes in the first six stages, including two wins"

Done!

and two stage wins in the early part of the race --> stage 6 is not the early part of the race. Plus I only now notice that the section Early stages goes all the way to 6 out of 8. That does not look right.

Struggled how to word this - the mountain stages decided the outcome of the race, so they're separated out as a key part. Initial stages? Early part of the race? "Starting in Paris and heading east" is not a great header either. I've gone with Stages 1 to 6, but thoughts welcome!

first taking place in 1903.[2] It takes place --> repetition

Fixed

From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently --> is this really true? From the text it seems there was no race in 1990 and 1991. Nor in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

It's complicated so I've reworded it. At least one equivalent race for women in France was held from 1984 to 2009 - some years had multiple from different organisers, but that's TMI

I agree that is TMI, but we cannot say "From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently" if it is only the case until 2009. What we have now is misleading.

Rephrased to a "between 1984 and 2009" wording

took place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[13] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place --> repetition

Fixed

with sponsors welcoming --> the previous sentence has the same with ..ing construction, which feels repetitive. Please check the rest as well, as you really seem to favour this construction.

Some edits and tweaks made

ASO noted that logistical issues mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> ASO noted that they were unable to stage a men's and women's Tour de France simultaneously due to logistical issues

Fixed

The first edition was be held --> grammar

Fixed

Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig commenting --see MOS:SAY

Fixed

A group of fourteen riders --> above you have All 14, so as per MOS:NUM change one

Fixed

Stages 7 and 8 took place in the Vosges --> unlink Vosges

Fixed

of climbing including the Grand Ballon --> of climbing, including on the Grand Ballon

Fixed

ensuring that the yellow jersey would change hands at the end of the day --> still not right. It does not ensure this.

Rephrased and moved losing the yellow jersey to later on

the second climb of the day --> now I'm confused: There is the first climb, which is unnamed. Then there is the Petit Ballon, which is a mountain, so should be the 2nd. So isn't Col du Platzerwasel the 3rd climb?

Rephrased

3rd place --> MOS:ORDINAL

Fixed

remnants of the breakaway --> remnants of the breakaway group

Fixed

As I asked above, why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? It seems odd to have a section called Results and recption, and then another section called Classification leadership. The first paragraph of Results and reception and the content in Classification leadership really belong together. I would follow as much as possible what 2012 TdF is doing, and then add a separate Reception section

Partial tweaks made - separating out results and reception. I actually think the prose works better keeping the summary of the final results (and the comments from riders) separate from classification leadership.

Last bit I will check later, asap. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after finishing in the top five on the first six stages --> the reader will infer that this is the reason to win the award, but that is a bit misleading. I would explain that a jury does it based on x y z, like you now have in the section below (which is why I think these 2 sections should merge). But if you do not want to do that, I would leave it out instead of repeating.

Reordered and rephreased

Her rival Vollering considered that they'd performed --> 2 issues: MOS:CONTRACTION and it is unclear who they is referring to. Is it not simply "she had performed"? Isn't she just talking about herself?

Changed - I think I had "Her rival Vollering considered that she had performed well throughout the race" before, but wanted to make clear it was Vollering talking about herself!

Just say "Vollering" instead of "Her rival Vollering"

Done!

Worldwide media coverage praised the event,[74][75] with CNN calling the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented --> grammatical issue here, which I would fix this way: Worldwide media coverage praised the event.[74][75] CNN called the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented

Fixed

2024 edition of the race visited the Alps --> 2024 edition visited the Alps

Fixed

The climbs were categorised as fourth-, third-, second- or first-category --> earlier you use a different notation: category 4. Consistency is better

Fixed

with the more difficult climbs rated lower. --> just be explicit: category 4 being the easiest and category 1 the hardest.

Fixed

I would also say something here about with hors catégorie, which was introduced already in the route section, even though there isn't one. This detailed section has all the rules, so might as well add.

Added

Yes, but now there is duplication: it was already linked and translated, so not needed again. Plus what I wanted to see is how many points, so should come after the category 1.

Duplication removed. As there are no hors-categorie climbs, the source has no information about how many points would be available. (It varies race to race)

Fourth-category awarded 2 riders, the first with 2 points; with 1 point; third-category awarded 3 riders, the first with 3 points; second-category awarded 4 riders, the first with 5 points; and first-category awarded 6 riders, the first with 10 points. -->MOS:NUM defifintely change the numbers for the riders. Plus there is an error in first bit. I would leave the points numbers. So Category 4 awarded two riders, the first with 2 points, and the second with 1 point; category 3 awarded three riders, the first with 3 points; category 2 awarded four riders, the first with 5 points; and category 1 awarded six riders, the first with 10 points.

Fixed

was restricted to riders who under the age of 23 --> apart from the fact this is not grammatical, the source says nées depuis le 1er janvier 2000, and this is how the 2012 FA avoids ambiguity as well.

Ah, but other sources say "Coureuses âgées de moins de 23 ans". Have left it with grammar fixed.

what are these other sources? Should you not add those? Right now you have a claim that is not backed up by the source. BTW isn't this source providing the official rules?

Added source to support.

The leader wore a white and violet jersey --> In the lead and elsewhere it is pure white.

That's me blindly copying the detailed source, when every secondary source just calls it white! Amended.

yellow number bibs on the back of their jerseys.[88] --> no yellow helmets?

Source doesn't mention it!

At the conclusion of the Tour, the jury awards--> why present tense? everything was past tense
+ 1 h 00 min 49 s --> the issue with s was fixed here but now there is a new formatting problem: it sticks out

Fixed

over the 8 stages --> MOS:NUM

Fixed

France 3, RTVE and SBS --> France 3, RTVE, and SBS

Fixed

In France, France 3 --> delink

Fixed

@Turini2: Just pinging you in case you missed my last batch of comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon I had, in the chaos of getting the 2024 edition to ITN! I'll work on this today. Turini2 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vast majority done, a few more need to be resolved with a fresh pair of morning eyes. :) Turini2 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon hello, all of these have been actioned or commented on! Turini2 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few issues left. See nested comments above. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon edits made! Turini2 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

51 52 53 together cover the whole paragraph. This was quite an effort to check. I could not see any of these 3 source supporting the word "rolling". I did see "The succession of short, sharp climbs through the hills", which to me as a non-cyclist doesn't sound like rolling. Cycling Weekly called it "punchy terrain".
None of the 3 sources mentioned the word "loop"

53 supports the loop and the rolling terrain - the profile shows the profile of the course and the map tab shows the route looping into Epernay.

"seven riders contending for the general classification broke away from the peloton" --> could not find support for this in any of the 3

replaced seven with several to avoid adding another source here to support one word (I think the seven was from Cycling News, originally).

55 and 56: With around 23 kilometres (14 mi) remaining --> 55 says 25km, 56 says 20km

Amended to 25 - crosschecked with Cycling News

57 58: Continuing east across France --> could not see this in these 2 sources

this is clear from the overall route direction, with a map above and route sources

With around 45 kilometres --> Guardian says 50km, Cycling W says 42km

And Cycling News says 45 exactly! Does "with around" caveat these numerical discrepancies enough?

due to bonuses --> did not see this in 57 or 58

Added source to support this

59 60: Stage 6 to Rosheim was a hilly stage --> I happened to notice that source 58 speaks of not 2 but 3 mountain stages: "eve of a trio of mountain stages". 59 calls it a transition stage. But "hilly" I did not see in these 2.

Hilly is from citation 1, supported further up in the article in the route section.

four categorised climbs and another climb with bonus seconds at the top --> in 59 I could only count 4 and nothing about bonus

Added Rouleur source (used above) to confirm

of the penultimate climb --> 60 definitely does not indicate which climb, and 59 says "final classification climb, the Route de Mollkirch". Probably needs another source to indicate this is indeed penultimate

The Rouleur source added above supports this

everyone involved ultimately finished the stage --> could not find support for this in 59 60

Added Tissot Timing source to support

I'll stop here. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from Jonesey95

I noted this on the talk page before seeing that an FAC was open. Flag use in this article appears to be contrary to MOS. See the talk page for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page, TLDR the article follows the consensus for cycling articles (and has been discussed numerous times). Turini2 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SPORTSFLAG has been edited following the established consensus for cycling/Formula 1/golf etc, and this matter is therefore resolved. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving on David’s behalf as per this as he probably forgot this part. Having been open for more than two months, this is still a long shot from achieving a consensus for promotion. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of a disappointing outcome, given the supports and responses to comments made. I guess I will go again in due course! Thanks all for your help and comments in this process. Turini2 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.