Talk:Alberto Contador

Citations but no footnotes

Fix it or I'm going to remove the text again. Nosleep1234 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Severo^TC 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nosleep1234 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

Origins of his nickname, "The Accountant"? Toby Douglass 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added this a while back, obviously not referencing it - my badness. I'll have a search to see where I got it from (and then reference it ;) ). Severo^TC 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The only ref to this on his very thorough Spanish page is that his mates called him "Pantani" when he first started cycling, as he was already an amazing climber. His surname literally translates as "accountant" - or at least, Google Translate does. Google will also bring up more than one cycling forum with some wannabe claiming to have "invented" it. Obviously, it's not his nick in Spain... nor does "contador" generally mean accountant, in common parlance; it's more normally used to refer to something like a gas meter. mikaul^talk 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, literally, it translates as "counter" or "one who counts." Contar is the verb for "to count" and the suffix "-ador" (pintador, one who paints {painter}, bailador, one who dances {dancer}) means "one who." Though it is correct that contador means bookkeeper or accountant. Nosleep1234 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pintador"? – er, you sure about that? Contador might literally be "one that counts", but in Spain it gets primarily used for meters and other non-human ones that count... an accountant/book-keeper is colloquially a gestor, more formally contable, unless in public office, where you might find a contador público </pedant> mikaul^talk 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found a reliable source for it, as, as you mention, it's just a translation of his name. Interestingly, I found a few sites that reference Wikipedia over it... Severo^TC 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about blood clot

There appears to be some speculation about the blood clot. I found at least one reliable source containing this speculation [1]. This may or may be (I can't read [2]. If we get 3 or so, we probably should mention it after this "renewed speculation about his involvement in Operación Puerto" (not in the blood clot section). Nil Einne 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, mere conjecture from this "news" website... Keep it encyclopaedic, keep it WP:BLP. Severo^TC 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Conjecture from multiple reliable sources is implicitly allowed under BLP. It is important here we get good sources, not tabloids. If & when multiple sources are found (currently we only have have 1, perhaps 2) then I would suggest you take it to the BLP noticeboard if you disagree but I think you will find you're wrong here (I'm a very strong supporter of BLP and also check the noticeboard not infrequently). There is nothing unencyclopaedic about us reporting very common speculation as speculation. Indeed, it's more unenyclopaedic for us to fail to mention any very common speculation. Note that there is a big difference between us saying that Contador's blood clot was due to reason X and us reporting that multiple reliable sources have speculated the blood clot may be due to reason X. It would be quite wrong for us to do the former, but there is nothing wrong with us doing the later, if true Nil Einne 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree, but who has said it must be explicit. Regards, Severo^TC 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about Puerto

I don't think that this statement: "he has become focus of renewed speculation about his involvement in Operación Puerto." Should be included. Two of the referenced articles are in French, so I can't read them, but the first article doesn't indicate that there is any "renewed" speculation at all. If there is "renewed speculation", then it should specifically cite the individuals or organizations involved, otherwise, I think this should be removed as per WP:BLP. Cogswobbletalk 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that it's just speculation. It shows how much of a witch hunt this has become. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the whole point is that it's not just speculation, but a deliberate attempt by Spain to protect national heros. His name was on the list. Doping expert Werner Franke got his hands on the original protocols of the searches in the house of Fuentes (cf. http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,497236,00.html (German)). Contador's name miraculously disappeared from the lists when spanish authorities passed them on. Fuentes was team doctor of Liberty Seguros. He was also a gynecologist. Now, as Jaksche puts it: Unless you want to do doping, there is little reason to go to a gynecologist as a male cyclist. Contador would do everyone a favor to follow Ivan Basso's example and confess or at least provide DNA for a test, if he truly has nothing to hide. The fact that he claims a DNA test would not be "fair" is ridiculous. Either its his blood or it isn't. --213.209.110.45 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the place of Wikipedia to arrive at a synthesis: that is counted as original research. I'm leaving this Werner Franke thing for the time being, but it seems more like he's a trouble maker than someone with an opinion with significant weight. As Cogswobble implies above, English language sources are preferable so that we can all ensure that WP:BLP is being adhered to. The importance of WP:BLP cannot be overestimated. Severo^TC 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are on the fringe of NPOV. BLP is important, but we do not "silence" people either. The FACT is that dozens of newspapers over the past week have posted again about his involvement in the operacion puerto case. The involvement is that he was on the original list given to the german police (the list that included ullrich) (reprinted by bild.de and suddeutsche zeitung last week). The fact is also that like Contador, Basso was "cleared" from the list in 2006, but in april 2007 Basso admitted that he was involved, so clearing does not mean that it could not be true regardless. The fact is that there was a dopingplan for "liberty seguros" that mentioned: "J.J. R.H. A.C.". The fact is that there is an A.C. on the list of Fuentes. Now there may not be proof, but there is definitely a LOT of speculation by media and fellow riders. We are not to say that this is true, but if so many newspapers report this, then who are we to silence it ? Wikipedia DOES report about unproven things, and several of these german and french papers are respected newssources. If someone's position is widely regarded controversial we do note this in wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about leaving the remarks from Franke. An article about Moshe Katsav without mentioning the accusations against him does not make sense. Nor can an article about Alberto Contador do without noting the accusations against him. That is common sense. According to the article about Werner Franke he is considered a “leading expert in performance enhancing drugs" and ZDF thought his accusations were important enough. If you have sourced statements about Franke please state them in a neutral way Scafloc 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We still don't draw synthesis. If someone reports AC as Contador that can be mentioned, but if the reports leave this open for the reader to infer, it cannot. We're talking about unproven but potentially career ending accusations here - whatever is added must be thoroughly sourced. Severo^TC 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Severo, but you're really stressing my patience by now. It is not the position of Wikipedia to out-expert the experts. You seem to have a lot of energy protecting cyclists from what you call libellous accusations, but have no hesitation to slander accredited doping experts as "troublemakers". Your suggestion that he isn't someone with an opinion that carries particular weight is ridiculous. You may believe all you want, but it isn't the role of Wikipedia to promote scientific illiteracy and gullibility. --213.209.110.45 07:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. I'm not a Contador fan, but I am a fan of sourcing and attributing statements. As Cogswobble says below, phraseology is everything. If there is a significant view to be detailed, it should be in the style of X accused Contador of Y.... Quote the experts exactly, and if they have implied something, allow them to imply it in their own words. We can't draw synthesis from people's arguments - that is policy. Severo^TC 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with your slandering Franke. You happily ignore BLP when it doesn't fit into your position. Labelling scientists "troublemakers" and accredited experts people people whose voice doesn't carry particular weight has little to do with policy and everything with POV-pushing. In fact, were I you, I would have removed it posthaste as a BLP violation. --213.209.110.45 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for improving the Alberto Contador article, not about me. Thanks for your care though. Severo^TC 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't improve the Alberto Contador article by slandering sources and acting as if you were a better expert in the field of doping than accredited scientists. You are quite right, this isn't about you, which is why you can keep your uninformed assessment of sources to yourself. Obviously, you don't even have the decency to retract your statements. --213.209.110.45 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the "renewed speculation" statement was that it was unsupported in the references, and that it was not specific. "Renewed speculation" implies that there is new information or a new accusation.

The sources cited for that statement simply restated the known information. If there IS new information or a new accusation (such as the Franke accusation), then it should be explicitly cited as "X accuses Contador of Y", rather than vaguely stating that there is "renewed speculation". Cogswobbletalk 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contador has been barred from racing in Hamburg because of the alleged links to Puerto:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/6937634.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Av2007av (talk • contribs) 10:13, August 9, 2007.

Current team

Someone recently changed Contador's current team from Discovery to Astana. My understanding was that it is Discovery until next year, when he will move to Astana. What's the lowdown on this? BrianTung 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, and an interesting point about when riders contracts expire has been in the Dutch courts lately as Thorwald Veneberg has disputed not being offered a new contract by Rabobank [3]. I just don't have the energy to revert these such edits only to change them back in January. In January, I will update all teams and riders (in the ProTour ranks at least, I'll do professional continental by the end of February) and refresh all the referencing. Severo^TC 13:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong info about Contador supposedly having lost 2007 victory

At the end of the page, in Sporting positions one can read: "Winner of the Tour de France (honour removed after decision of race officials; see Cadel Evans)", what contradicts with the intro text "winner of the 2007 Tour de France with team Discovery Channel". Aiarakoa (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. User:Peter Ellis made some changes but I'm not sure if it was vandalism or a lack of information.Drunt (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. I mistook a report about the Astana Team matter, which appeared in several forms that seemed to support my mistaken supposition. - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be a 3rd photo

I mean one of Contador wearing the maglia rosa, for that of the 5th cyclist winning the 3 grand tours, and there are already images of him wearing the yellow and gold maillot. 62.57.8.126 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added one from my own, the problem is that I don't find where to put it, so I put it on the palmarés section and put the 2004 photo from there on the "early years" section. I think it fits well... Korlzor (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, that progression of photos is pretty damn cool. Kudos to all who put it together. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

If somebody wants to start a peer review for A-class or Good Article review for this article, I would be interested in the results. The formatting of the palmares ("Major achievements") would interest me, just as the used templates in the bottom of the article (the "Sporting positions - Winner of the Tour de France" and "Tour de France Yellow jersey winners" are not both needed, I think one of them should leave, but I would like the review to determine which.) I have not contributed to this article, and not enough time, so I don't start the review-process myself. I might help with it, though.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up for GA. It will be some time before a reviewer gets to it, so we can continue to improve the article in the meantime. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alberto Contador/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See below.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   MOS:IMAGES isn't too keen on forced image sizes, but I'm OK with letting it go here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• He won the 2007 Tour de France with the Discovery Channel team and the 2008 Giro d'Italia and 2008 Vuelta a España with Astana, being the fifth racer in history, and the first Spaniard, to win all three Grand Tours of road cycling, among legends Jacques Anquetil (1963), Felice Gimondi (1968), Eddy Merckx (1973) and Bernard Hinault in (1980).
• I'm a little unsure what the bracketed years mean here as well. Is this the year they won their third Grand Tour?
  • Took out the years. It is the year of each of their third Grand Tour, but that's kind of meaningless. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Bernard Hinault in (1980). The in is redundant.
  • Took it out. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've actually taken out the references to the other four with the career triple entirely. The same information is given later on, and I think this is a little too much detail for the lead. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• While he competes for the overall titles, he is considered a climbing specialist, although recently he has improved his Time Trialing ability somewhat, and is becoming more the complete grand tour rider. I'm not super keen on somewhat here, and the sentence is very close to OR. Can you provide sources that say his TT ability is improving? Shouldn't be too hard.
  • Think this is taken care of. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Is there a page you can link to for Time Trialing?
  • Yep, done. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Grand Tour has gone to grand tour.
  • Taken out. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• He has earned a reputation as an all-rounder, a cyclist who excels in all aspects of stage racing. How is he at pack sprinting?

Probably okay, but that's not a skill that's required for GC success in stage racing. I'll revise the statement. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Early years and family

• I can't help but feel the name of his siblings being included is a touch redundant. They are also not included in the covering cite, though in a latter one. I'd copy his official bio cite and move it forwards to cite this (I don't know how to phrase my comment any better...)
  • Moved the citation. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And his siblings? Apterygial 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Redundant? To what exactly? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• ...signed up for Basque team Iberdrola-Loinaz, a Basque youth team of the professional ONCE cycling team.
  • I took out both incidences of "Basque." I think it's fairly irrelevant.
• The grammar in this paragraph is fairly stilted, is lacking some commas and articles. The problems should be fairly easy to spot, but let me know if you have problems.
  • Think it's okay now, but let me know if not. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Los altibajos de Contador is a deadlink.
  •  Fixed Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Education in Spain#Bachillerato no longer links anywhere in that article. You could probably just get away with saying he didn't finish his schooling.
  • Linked to education in Spain#Post-compulsory schooling, which discusses bachillerato immediately. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I reckon it should be his Bachillerato. Apterygial 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed

• He discovered cycling at the age of 14 thanks to his elder brother Francisco Javier. Contador had previously practiced other sports such as football and athletics. These sentences would work better if you swapped them over (and fixed the problems associated with such a swap), as the next few sentences talk about cycling, so the flow would be better.

 Fixed

ONCE/Liberty Seguros (2004-2006)

• In his first year as a professional he won the eighth stage (ITT) of Tour de Pologne. ITT should be spelt out on first mention, and linked here only (it's also linked further on).
• I'm sure it should be the Tour de Pologne. This applies equally to the other times in the article when events are named.
• There is no cite covering the latter part of the first paragraph.

 Done (all of the above) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Still some definite articles missing before tour names.
  • Didn't notice before. Like I said, I'm not a terrific copyeditor. I have a feeling that much of this article may have been first written by someone for whom English was not their first language. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Unless the cycling wikiproject usually does otherwise, stage 4 should be stage four. Same issue appears later on in the article.
  • It's considerably more common to refer to stages by numeral. Doesn't necessarily make it better, I guess. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Did ONCE turn into Liberty Seguros?
  • Yes. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 season

• Link Discovery Channel again.
• under a cloud of suspicion due to the Operación Puerto doping case. Although you elaborate later on, I reckon you should say he was implicated rather than under a cloud of suspicion.
• Upon Rasmussen's removal from the race before stage 17. Should probably say why...
• In the stage 19 individual time trial, mention it's the penultimate stage (probably don't need to mention that all they do on the final stage is drink champagne).

 Done Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Per MOS:IMAGE, left-aligned images should not be situated below level 3 headings.
  • Aren't images supposed to alternate sides of the screen, though? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this might best be resolved by removing the ==Career== heading. It's fairly trivial and has no text between it and the next heading. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree: the career heading made a lot of sense as the info under its banner talked about his career exclusively, now it seems disconnected. You could solve the original problem by not specifying the image size. Apterygial 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Upon Rasmussen's removal from the race before stage 17 for lying to his team about his pre-race whereabouts... I reckon you should say pre-race training whereabouts.

2008 season

• Contador wins Golden Bike award for second year in a row is a deadlink.
  •  Fixed Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• On 13 February 2008, the organizer of the Tour de France, the Amaury Sport Organisation, announced that Astana would not be invited to any of their events in 2008. Why?

Because of the doping scandals from the Biver-led Astana Team. I'll find a source for that, shouldn't be hard. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Johan Bruyneel alluded to this on Belgian television by saying: "I'm not going to repeat the words I could hear him shout over the phone, but let's just say it wasn't pretty". Needs a cite.

I think I'll probably just take it out.

• Contador was proclaimed winner of the Giro the 1st June 2008 in Milan. Fairly obvious problems here.

 Fixed

• He placed fourth in the individual time trial, 8 seconds behind his Astana teammate Levi Leipheimer. 8 → eight.

 Fixed

• That final time trial was won by teammate Levi Leipheimer. Overlink.

 Fixed before I even came back to this talk page :)

• Contador later seemed to take some offense to Leipheimer seemingly riding with winning the Vuelta in mind. The source doesn't say Leipheimer was seemingly riding with winning the Vuelta in mind.

I'll get to the other points, but that source has Contador speculating that if the ITT were any longer, Leipheimer (who is generally accepted as a superior time trialist to Contador) would have won the Vuelta. I'm not sure what else Contador could have meant. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have fixed my problem before you got to it again. For clarity, say offense to Leipheimer seemingly riding instead of offense to him seemingly riding. Apterygial 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• The last section of this paragraph needs cites.

 Done

• Contador was without a professional contract until mid-January 2007, when he signed with Discovery Channel, after having been implicated in the Operación Puerto doping case. It'd work better if you said he was implicated first, such as: After having been implicated in the Operación Puerto doping case, Contador was without a professional contract until mid-January 2007, when he signed with Discovery Channel. Otherwise it looks like he signed because he was implicated.

 Fixed

2009 season

• On September 9, 2008. Date consistency.

 Fixed

• 'directeur sportif' should be in italics.
• Changed to sporting director. "Directeur sportif" is reasonably common in English media, but so is "sporting director," and we should err on the side of English whenever reasonable (this is the English Wikipedia after all) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• said that he couldn't allow Armstrong riding for another team and later signed him. Contraction.
  • Mmm? There have to be dozens of contractions in the article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:CONTRACTION. Apterygial 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • There were actually only two. Like I said in my edit summary, I disagree that contractions are the devil, but it doesn't really matter. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree with plenty in the MOS (WP:DASH is ridiculous) but it's there for a reason. Apterygial 11:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
          • True enough. I need to go defy my username for a few hours. I'll tackle a pretty major revision in a little while Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Should split this paragraph after what is now cite 30.

 Done

• placing second to young gun Ryan McElligott on Stage 3 Three things: have you got a better way of saying young gun, redlink Ryan McElligott and Stage should be stage.

 Done "Young gun" was absurdly ridiculous. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Actually I took the name out altogether. This was the only article that linked to it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• He looked sure to win Paris-Nice again after winning the prologue and the toughest mountain stage, leaving Luxembourg national champion Fränk Schleck in his wake, but suffered a dramatic breakdown in stage 7, losing his yellow jersey to fellow Spaniard Luis Leon Sánchez. Needs to be NPOVed.

 Done

Doping allegations

• Merge the second and third paragraphs.

 Done

• On 28 July 2007 the French daily Le Monde. Overlink.

 Fixed

• On 28 July 2007. Needs a comma after 2007, same with the start of the next paragraph.

 Fixed

• declared he's a clean rider. Contraction.
  • I don't think contractions are the problem, though this was sloppily worded. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• From I have never doped onwards, this section is eerily reminiscent of this source.
  • Took it out. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Other points

• I'm fine with having the Winner of the Tour de France succession box and the Tour de France Yellow jersey winners box, doesn't seem to represent much of a clash of information to me.
  • I actually took it out. I don't think it accomplishes much of anything. If we don't have templates for the Giro and Vuelta winners, we should (and it seems we don't, so I'm gonna get on that). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• The Major achievements is fine at the moment (though if you could find a blanket source for it and put it in the External links section that'd be great), but as it gets bigger in a couple of years you should consider giving it its own article.
  • Two palmarès lists are references in the article, I just put them there an additional time. Does that work? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep. That seems to work. Apterygial 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think to reach the comprehensive criterion the article needs to have a Personal life section - not too much though - as at this stage there is very little on him outside of cycling.
  • I tried, but I wasn't able to find a whole lot, and what I did find seems a bit trivial. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks fine. When I first came to the article it said he lives in Pinto. You could add that. Apterygial 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Born in Pinto, but lives in Madrid now (though that's kind of like saying born in East Rutherford and now lives in New York City). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I didn't see you'd already written Madrid in there. Certainly not a sticking point, but is there any way you could merge Personal life and Early career (having the second paragraph of Personal life last in the revised section)? Apterygial 07:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah, the link was to Madrid (autonomous community) but piped to just show "Madrid." Not terribly clear. I think it is now. Is this heading on the new section good? (Personal life and early career?) It seems a little clunky to me. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't really think there's a way you can do it without it looking clunky (I had a look at a few sport FAs and I couldn't find any better). On a related note, you should mention who Pantani was. Apterygial 08:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

References

• Those two deadlinks.
• Most references are missing author information, publishing information, and access and publishing dates.
  • Cites should all be standardized. I put {{fact}} next to the deadlinks and took out the not-too-WP:RS cyclingfans.com and marked those as well. I'll of course get cites next to the relevant facts post haste. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Found refs pretty quickly :) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Cite 32 is still missing some info.
        •  Done
• Sometimes 'cyclingnews.com' is italicised and sometimes it isn't.
  • I have absolutely no idea how to fix that. ''cyclingnews.com'' doesn't appear anywhere in any of the citations. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If the entry field is "work=", it is italicised, if it is "publisher=" it isn't. Probably doesn't need the ".com" part, just the site name ("Cyclingnews"). Apterygial 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. I changed them all to publisher, I think that makes a lot more sense. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • And I fixed the other ref problems. Apterygial 08:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing overall impressions

Overall, it seems OK, but there are quite a few grammar and citing problems which need fixing before it can be passed to GA. I'd love it if someone could give it a good copyedit before I continue the review, as at this rate it could take quite a while. Apterygial 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely got better in the last 24 hours, but there is still a bit there to fix. Apterygial 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting very close, just a few more things left to do. Apterygial 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Passed GA

I'm passing this article for GA. This article has displayed a huge improvement on a week ago, so congratulations there. A key thing with articles such as this is to remember to update it often, apart from that, good luck! Apterygial 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GREAT on ga!

I worked on this article some time ago and I like seeing it on such a good status, thanks everyone!. 62.57.212.11 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Grand Tour Results (3 victories)"

OK, so 8 reasons is maybe pushing it, but this section is

1. Garish
2. Redundant to the article prose
3. Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox
4. Needlessly bloating the article (WP:SIZE)

Please discuss here before adding it again. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

# Garish

¿Why?

Personal opinion..? This isn't too important.

# Redundant to the article prose

# Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox

Not true, actually it says the complete positions on each ranking

Perhaps that's technically true, but what is the significance of Contador finishing 122nd in the points classification of the 2005 Tour, or 22nd in the mountains class of the Giro? There isn't one. It's the very definition of trivia.

1. Needlessly bloating the article (WP:SIZE)

Completely false lol, its a very small table which affects the article in a really short way... 62.57.239.194 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With the table, the article is 38K. Without it, it's 36K. WP:SIZE says an article should, whenever possible, be between 20K and 40K (30K and 50K, actually. So not quite as big a deal, but it still does make a difference). It makes an appreciable difference. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like something from the tennis bio articles which, as we've stated before, look great but don't really work for cycling races. The complete positions on most of the rankings don't really matter: Contador has never attempted to win a points or mountains jersey. The section is redundant to what is already in the GA-standard article. Severo^TC 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never before seen the reasons for the removal of the table. I never even noticed that it had been there. I have been busy making similar tables for Tour de France winners. Only with the important classifications, so without white jerseys or combination classifications. This is what it would look like for Contador:

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Tour	31	DNE	1	DNE
Stages won	0	—	1	—
Mountains classification	NR	—	2	—
Points classification	122	—	10	—
Giro	DNE	DNE	DNE	1	DNE
Stages won	—	—	—	0	—
Mountains classification	—	—	—	22	—
Points classification	—	—	—	8	—
Vuelta	DNE	DNE	DNE	1
Stages won	—	—	—	2
Mountains classification	—	—	—	3
Points classification	—	—	—	2

Legend

1	Winner
2–3	Top three-finish
4–10	Top ten-finish
11–	Other finish
DNE	Did not enter
DNF-x	Did not finish (retired on stage x)
DNS-x	Did not start (not started on stage x)
HD	Finished outside time limit (occurred on stage x)
DSQ	Disqualified
N/A	Race/classification not held
NR	Not ranked in this classification

Four arguments against this kind of table have been given, so let me reply.

1. Garish.

Even though you said it's not important, I still like to reply on this. The kind of tables with the colors are in use in tennis players articles, formula one racers articles and golf player articles, so the wikipedia consensus seems to be that these tables can be used.

2. Redundant to the article prose 3. Redundant to the "major wins" section of the infobox

Yes, it is. So is the palmares section (here named "Major achievements"). But I intend it as a replacement for the "Major achievements" section. Now we have the information in the infobox, in the prose, and in the major achievements. I would like to see it in the infobox, the prose and the table. So the redundancy does not change.

4. Needlessly bloating the article

Because the "Major achievements" section can be smaller with this table, it does not bloat the article that much. But the important word here is "needlessly", see the next issue:

5. The complete positions on most of the rankings don't really matter (I just continue the numbering)

Maybe. That Contador was 122th in the points classification of the 2005 Tour de France is irrelevant, but it is relevant that he was not top three. Or rather, it would have been relevant if he were top three, and this table shows that this is not the case.

I will stop adding these tables to other articles, but would you please reply on this table and my reasoning?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar tables are also made for tennisplayers. See for instance Roger Federer and his results in the grandslam tournaments.

Listing the resultsin the normal race in a table seems relevant but I could do without the Mountains classification and the Points classification.

Scafloc (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what to do with the Mountains and Points classification. I included them for now, but I also thought about just including a jersey if the classification was won. But then second places in the classification could not be seen, and for example for Erik Zabel, I would like the table to show that between 2002 and 2008 he was still doing well in the points classification. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If we want to change how we give major results for every cyclist, then so be it. I don't see any need to, and I think the way it's currently done works just fine. My argument basically boils down to that. As far as the Zabel example, his continued fair performances in the Tour after his period of dominance ended should be mentioned in the article prose (I really hate how we are writing articles that we apparently don't expect anyone to read) and arguably in the "Major results" or whatever section (I don't think we've conclusively decided on this). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the prose. I am not suggesting to remove anything from the article prose. Of course it should be added to the prose. Maybe it's my engineering background, but I like tables and graphs to accompany the prose. Let the prose and the data work together. And the way the data is presented now, is not really working. Most articles list the victories by year now, but some articles include the tiniest races and all rankings, and I want a way to have everything work out better. The tennis project and formula one project found some solution for this problem, so I tried to copy the solution.

I think I will stop with the tables in the main space, and start with working out one example in full detail in my user space. If the consensus is that it does not work, so be it, but at least I tried. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're trying to eliminate prose, but this does effectively replace it (hence "we're writing articles we don't expect anyone to actually read"). If that's the audience we're trying to cater to, then this is the right thing to do. I hope it's not, though. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that we don't expect readers. A better presentation of the data will not be a negative influence on the number of readers, will it?

Well, what's the reason to have tables and such if it's not to provide quick reference, which is effectively an alternative to 35K of prose? With the table, readers don't need to actually read the article, and probably won't. If that's what we want, then that's what we want, but I don't like it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want readers that prefer pure prose to prose accompanied with figures and tables, then you don't want me as reader. I agree with your point that there are too many cyclist biographies with only one line of prose, an infobox and results. But that is unrelated to my point of the bad presentation of those results, as far as I can see. Let's keep the discussions separated. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OH! Are you proposing an alternative to the "Major results" section? That's totally different. It doesn't address how to list non-Grand Tours, and it's still quite bogged down in trivia, but it is separate from my other points, yes. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see we can agree:). If I can find the time, I will try to make an example on my userpage that replaced the palmares section with a table. Probably there will be a lot wrong with it, but we don't have a deadline :). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The current table is much less an issue. I still don't really see its merits, but that's absolutely personal opinion. No serious objection to it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the responsibility of being the one who introduced it it in the Armstrong, Leipheimer and Menchov articles. I was looking for comparative information about how some riders (actually, the rder I was focused on was Christian Vandevelde, whom I know has finished all three Grand Tours) had done in the Grand Tours, and it bothered me that there was such placement information for golf and tennis but not for cycling. The only real change I made was changing the championship color from green (after the green jacket given to the winner of the Masters) to the colors of the winners' jerseys and adding a separate color for non-winning podiums. Anyway, that's the reason for this table, which is why it doesn't contain all the stage win and jersey information of the draft table presented above. I never intended it as a replacement, just as a supplement. -- AyaK (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

it's a shame

it's a shame that a crack pot like greg lemond can accuse contador of doping and tell him the burden to prove his innocence is on contactor and wikipedia prints it here. in america someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. it's obviously not true on wikipedia. this incident should go in the greg lemond article and not alberto contador. there is no evidence that alberto doped yet there is overwhelming evidence that greg lemond is a dope. it is well documented now that greg's maths for which he based his character assassination are baseless. so do you guys print any rumor or inflamatory thing said by someone as long as they are "noteworthy"? so if greg lemond said "i think alberto is a dick head" would you start a new section entitled "allegations of being a dick head"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

lemond is a former cyclist and bitter man but her is NOT an exppert or even noteworthy source on the subject of (VO₂)/. those who ARE experts on (VO₂) have all agreed greg's calculations/method is flawed. yet you quote lemond as if he knew what he was talking about. the majority of your readers will not realize lemond is a bitter crack pot yet you use him as a source as if he knew what he was talking about. shame on you. again, this (VO₂) nonsense belongs in the lemond article and not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. Personally, I've always thought it was strange that LeMond protests so much about others doping -- because the fastest long time trial in the history of the TdF, faster than all the known dopers, was ridden by LeMond. If we suspect them because of their performances, shouldn't we suspect him as well? But that's just a side point. the fact is, LeMond raised a very serious issue. The person he quoted for the VO2 calculations, Antoine Vayer, may not be a household name, but he is considered the leading expert on cyclist physiology. Thus, this can't be dismissed as the rantings of a crank, which is why I added it to the article in the first place. Then I and others added the counter-evidence, as it became clear that many other credible people disagreed with Vayer's calculations (and LeMond misused them to some extent). As the third rebuttal article points out, the area of focus here -- oxygen transport -- is a focus of anti-doping efforts. Why wouldn't an encyclopedia briefly discuss the circumstances under which this measure came to widespread attention? - AyaK (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

because it is so poorly discussed in the article, and most of the type is given to lemond who is NOT a V02 expert. that is the problem, you quote him as if he knows what he's talking about. if you read what the sports scientists have to say, those who really do know, it's obvious lemond is a cracked actor. no one ran a 4 minute mile for 10s of thousands of years and when they finally did it was due to training, conditioning and nutrition. and now it happens all the time and not by doping. not everyone who rides better than lemond is doping, in spite of what that cry baby says. furthermore, using lemonds ridiculous maths then schleck was doped up too. the bottom line is every REAL expert says greg is off his rocker (or just mistaken) but you don't mention that do you? not more than one sentence should go to greg's nonsense and the bulk of the section should be from legitimate people who are in fact experts. shame on wikipedia!

this is one more example of how wiki slanders people. you give a mouth piece to every crack pot and feel like its your obligation to put what someone says in an article without understanding who you're quoting or what their claim is. numerous REAL experts have weighed in and NOT one is saying what lemond claims has any merit. lastly, you cannot calculate V02 levels from someone riding up a fucking mountain. you hbave to have controls for a test to be accurate. There are NUMEROUS other factors that lemond ignored/left out of his maths.