Talk:2015 Eneco Tour

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Eneco Tour article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2015 Eneco Tour has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 28, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Cycling Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do this one as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Pre-race favourites: You speak about how Wellens won the previous edition. Two things about that: 1) I think it would be better to write that he won the race with an attack on the penultimate stage rather than in the penultimate stage, since he didn't win it a day ahead of time. 2) The sources just write about that he is the defending champion, not about the nature of his victory, so you should provide a source from 2014 as well.
For future reference: I am seeing this in your articles quite often, that there are parantheses missing around the team name behind the rider's name. You should be more careful here and proofread.
You should take another look at the punctuation in the captions. There should be a full stop for every caption that includes a full sentence (like the photo for stage 2).
I don't quite see how ref 10 includes the info about the classifications and the jerseys. There is a link to the 2013 reglement here, maybe that helps.

Good job so far! I will put this on hold for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zwerg Nase. In order:

Done.
You're quite right. Fixed the one and I have rigged up some regex to help me fix future articles.
Done.
This is tricky. The information regarding the classifications is not published anywhere as far as I can tell. The only way I could source it was by looking at the official results, which clearly show what the regulations were, albeit only by induction. They don't cover the colours of the jerseys, I agree, and I've added a source that does. I'm not sure what else I can do for this information.

Let me know what you think. Relentlessly (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I added the 2013 reglement as a source as well. I believe that together, the sources should be sufficient to prove the point beyond doubt. I therefore give this a pass :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]