Talk:Jens Voigt

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Otr500 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


  • I am in the process of reviewing this article. The size and scope of the article dictates a somewhat longer time frame, than might be considered normal, so please be patient. Otr500 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Are there any contributing editors available? Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: time frame extended for holidays without placing on hold. Otr500 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Determination[edit]

The article has some issues and concerns were being addressed by the nominator. Because of the holidays I extended the review but afterwards the nominator announced (here) of taking a "wikibreak". The review therefore has to be concluded on the merits of the article at this time.
This article is a biographies of living persons and is subjected to higher overall standards. There are 6 specific criteria for a GA article:

1)- Well Written:

a)- The article is well written to a point but has some grammatical errors such as comma splices, some sentence structure issues (Voigt was as a rider generally popular with cycling fans,...), and erratic use of conversions;
b) - The Lead section falls short of satisfying a summary, especially considering GA, with an article this size and needs a paragraph to satisfy NPOV. It "might" be considered to some as trivial but driving 850,000 kilometres (530,000 mi) (17 year career) in a vehicle is a feat but doing this on a bicycle is interesting information (Suggestion).

2)- Verifiability:

a)-
b)- There are issues with references that have been left unresolved. A criteria to use high-quality sources stipulate "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". This was addressed on the talk page. Work on this was started but not finished.
c)-

3)- Broad in its coverage:

a)- This is an autobiography and is titled as that being the topic. There is a brief mention of his parents in the "Early life" section but jumps into his cycling career. There is a very brief more current "summary" in the "Personal life" section. As for as a biographical article this is relegated to a biographical "timeline" of Voigt's cycling career. The article does mention that he has "six children, the youngest born January 2011.". The article leaves a somewhat questioning atmosphere. He is a "former professional road bicycle racer" so is there a need for a "Retirement" section? There is certainly a need for some coverage, possibly in the "Personal life" section, to answer questions such as what is he doing now, where does he live etc...? It would be more relevant than that about his youngest child with no other family information.
b)- Needs to be checked for excessive details and possible trimming to allow "some" personal biographical information.

4)- Neutral:

There is a lean towards less than neutral treatment specifically concerning the lead. If there is any controversy there should be summary information in the lead for NPOV. In my opinion the issue of doping (suspicions of systematic doping etc...) has been widely debated in this sport and allegations have been voiced causing Voigt to offer statements that he does not "dope" and has never tested positive. This "should" be tastefully as well as neutrally covered in the lead.

5)- Stable:

The article has been relatively stable except of course for improvements.

6)- Illustrated, if possible, by images:

a)- The article appears to be "illustrated nicely and I did not find any issues with the images regarding policy;
b)- An exception is that the Hour Record - bike image, is unnecessary. The Hour record section does not lend relevance to the image, nor does the image compliment the section, or any other sections that I could see. While Wikipedia is certainly not censored I do not see that the image enhances the article at all but simply depicts a vulgar statement at best.
    • I am seeking another set of eyes to go over my assessment and offer comments before making a decision. Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Otr500, I'll put out the formal request for a second opinion. (I just noticed your comment here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

If we have to go on what is currently on the page, then it is a fail. There are unsourced paragraphs, the lead is too short and your (Otr500) other points are also valid. You've done what you can. EddieHugh (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you as well. The review looks entirely valid, and more importantly the issues haven't been addressed, so I'm closing this as a failed GA. Wizardman 15:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for you assistance. It was my first review so thanks again. I have been suffering from serious allergy problems and not able to do much the last several days. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I did a preliminary and found some issues. I will provide a complete review at a point but found the general structure to be sound, no image problems, and the article was very readable.

None of the issues are what I consider really serious. There are several (some really minor), and I was going to flag the article for 7 days, but if there is availability for immediate response I would prefer to go that route, with some updates, and some discussions at first. Please place any discussions (or mark as done) under each.
  • The lead: Considering the size of the article (well over 30,000 characters) I think the lead could be expanded for better summary coverage. NPOV is an important aspect of Wikipedia and the article appears alright in that area *BUT*: I think the last paragraph should touch on the referenced drug allegations or questioning aspect. The lead is one of my lessor of concerns but important.
  • Sentence structure: There is an excessive use of comma's, especially in the middle of simple sentences, and a couple of places where a semi-colon might be more appropriate. If someone would look at this I would appreciate it.
    • I've started working on that, you are right, some sentences have too many commas. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dead links: I found at least 3 dead links so these need to be checked and repaired as necessary.
    • Do you mean red links or dead reference links? If it is ref links, could you be so kind as to point them out? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dead reference links:
  • #11 (code 500)
    • checkY-Done :Took care of that one with a CNN article implying he his Basso's helper. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 07:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • #15 (code 404)
    • checkY-Done : I found another link detailing the 2007 Tour of California final results. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • #23 (Not sure what it is)
  • #50 (code 505)

Otr500 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Check for disambiguation redirects. I think there was one.*There are some conversions missed. There were only a couple and one was 98.5 kilometers.
  • There are a lot of redirects. This is not even a problem per Wikipedia. Some redirects are desired but I feel too many can be distracting. Again, this is just my personal observation.
  • Under the 2011-2014 section there was one part hard to read, "He was fined sign: Fr. or SFr. or FS 1,000...", that is hard to read and the reference simply states "...fined 1,000 Swiss Francs." (ref #49). There are more than a few instances when "Jens Voigt" is used from one sentence to the next but then "behind David Zabriskie.[50] He was also part of breakaways and paced the bunch often.". I assume this is still referencing David so possibly "David Zabriskie "who" was also...". That section is as far as I have gotten. Otr500 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: time frame extended for holidays without placing on hold. Also listed at Talk:Jens Voigt/GA1. Otr500 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jens Voigt. 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.

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) 09:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jens Voigt. 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.

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) 05:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)