Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


I will review this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2016 (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:

I have made some changes myself, just a little more to take care of:

  • The whole team classification business is confusing. As far as I understand, the regular team classificaton works like in the Tour de France, counting together the three top finishers on each stage. However, three problems arise here: 1) The fact that it is the three highest finishers of each stage, and not overall is not reflected in the lead. 2) and more importantly: Your source for the classifications is from 2008, so it is possible that this has changed since 1996. A better source should be found. 3) In the classification section, you mention only one team classification.
  • Route and stages: You should not use the term "individual pursuit" for a time trial, since it can be confused with the actual pursuit competition in track cycling.
Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Race overview: The end of the second paragraph needs to be rephrased. After the description of stage 7, you start the sentence with "In what was thought to be...", not making it clear that you speak about the next stage. A sentence later, the sentence ends apruptly after "to give Chiappucci". Give him what?
Wow, I am ashamed of this error. Fixed! Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • One paragraph later: "attack coming from Zaina and Outschakov. Zaina dropped Gontchenkov" - that does not make sense? Is it Outschakov or Gontchenkov?!
Fixed. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That is what I found. Good work so far. I place this on hold. Since I will be on vacation starting wednesday, promotion might take some time until next week, when I am back, so please be patient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: Thank you for the changes so far. Where do we stand with the first point? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, Disc Wheel hasn't edited on Wikipedia since updating the article on August 17. After three weeks, it may be time to start thinking about closing the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Oh, I did not even notice that. I'll try to sort out the remaining issue myself, otherwise I'll need to fail it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Since no further work is forthcoming, I will have to fail this article for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1996 Giro d'Italia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Review will follow shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I completely forgot about this review... will give it very soon, so sorry! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: Sorry for the huge delay! Review:

  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:

What needs to be done:

  • Lead: As far as I understand, the team ranking is determined by the times of the top three riders on each stage. If so, this should be clearly stated in the lead when talking about that classification.
  • Teams: Some teams do not have wikilinks, even though articles exist for them (Roslotto, Panaria, etc.)
  • Race overview: Towards the end of the second paragraph, there's a typo at "Saeco".
  • The biggest issue are the classification tables at the end of the article:
    • Mountain's classification: There are two Buenohoras listed, which does not seem to be correct.
    • Also, the sources do not give a top 10 for the mountain's classification, only the top 8. So if you cannot find another source for this, please only give the top 8 in the article as well.

Other than that, very well written article. I'll put the review on hold.