Talk:2015 Gent–Wevelgem

2015 Gent–Wevelgem 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: October 28, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 2015 Gent–Wevelgem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that several cyclists were blown off their bicycles in the 2015 Gent–Wevelgem?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Gent–Wevelgem.

Wikipedia

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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 27 October 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:

Made some minor changes. Other than that:

The source for the result is formatted differently than with other races, so you should change it do create consistency.
Also, it would be nice to read some reactions from riders about the result and the conditions.

That's about all that I can think of. Good job once more! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. I've made Ypres/Ieper consistent: I don't much care which we use as long as it's consistent. I've added a rider reaction section. I haven't changed the citations style: per comments at WT:CYCLING I've changed to putting the citations with a <ref>...</ref> and I'm going to make the other ones consistent at some point in the near future. I hope that's OK for now! Many thanks again, ZN. Relentlessly (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, a very good post-race section! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions