Talk:2015 Amstel Gold Race

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Amstel Gold Race/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very little wrong with this. The following should be taken care of:

• No citations needed in the lead. You can move the first two into the infobox, the third one is not needed since you give this info later in the text.
• Teams: Why did Devenyns and Degand not start?
• Route: Any chance you can give a comparison with the previous year's course?
• Pre-race favorites: The first two sentences seem not to fit. If Kreuziger attacked shortly after the last ascend of Cauberg, wasn't that very late in the race as well?
• 2nd paragraph: You should give Kreuziger's team, now it seems like he is with Wanty. You could also put Schumacher and Rebellin next to each other, that way you only need to give the team once.
• Report: was caught 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) later - the source says 7 km.
• Post-race: was his worst result since his victory in 2010 sounds a little weird. I think better would be "was his worst result since 2009"?
• UCI World standings: Even though you give the references in the prose, you should also add a source row to the table, just as you have for the race result.

That's about it, good work so far! :) It's on hold for 7 days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Zwerg Nase. All done now, I think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done some minor fixes myself, but now it's done :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Amstel Gold Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418184318/http://www.cyclingnews.com:80/amstel-gold-race/results to http://www.cyclingnews.com/amstel-gold-race/results

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)