Talk:1971 Tour de France/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (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:

General comment[edit]

The FA review for 1985 Tour de France has led to the understanding that the classifications section should be put ahead of the race overview in order to make it more understandable for readers. This has not been discussed in the WikiProject yet, but I wanted to point it out since it could lead to problems if you want to take this article to FA (which I hope you will). Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Not sure about giving the number of TTs alongside the rest days. Especially since it does not clarify what type of time trials. Would recommend speaking just about length and start and finish in the first sentence, then mention split stages along rest days in the following sentence, focusing on how many stages there were.
"unknowingly" is a very strange term. Maybe "inadvertently"? Also, "returned" sounds like he actually handed the jersey to Merckx, I would reword that as well.
"closet rival" - missing "s"
I think using "solo" as a verb might be to colloquial. Maybe "rode on his own"?
"down to Marseille" - would cut "down"
"and afterwards was hit by two other riders" - if this is debated, as the footnote suggests, maybe cut it from the lead and write about it in detail in the prose?

More to come, sorry for the long delay. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams[edit]

Maybe add a source from van den Akker about how teams were invited? The article in De Volkskrant is quite vague about it, I feel.
The sentence about Mars-Flandria might be a chance to say what the entrance fee is used for (see Volkskrant article) and maybe you have more information on how much more the team had to pay?

Pre-race favourites[edit]

Footnote #15 is used twice at the end of the first sentence.
"He was unrivalled" reads a bit odd, considering that he only won almost half of his races.
The sentence "Merckx was such an overwhelming favourite that the interest was not in if could win, but rather the manner in which he would do it." is followed by a source that reads "Whoever beats Merckx wins the Tour". So apparently there was talk of him not winning? Maybe this can be reworded slightly?

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route and stages[edit]

"it was announced that city of" - missing a "the"
"At distance of 3,608 km (2,242 mi)" - missing "a"
"maximised the amount route locations" - missing "of"
"There were total of five transfers" - missing "a"
"The previous Tour's split stages" - quickly explain what split stages are
"was overriding" - maybe "was an overriding factor"?
"There three split stages" - missing "were"
"the shortest in the history of the race (as of 2017)" - can this potentially be updated?
"and one was by raced by teams" - a "by" too many

Race overview[edit]

As per the FA review for 1986, it has been suggested that we leave out the "1971 Tour de France" part in the second part of the main template. So that it reads "Main articles: 1971 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 9 and Stage 10 to Stage 20". See 1986 Tour for the wikicode. Not a must, but I thought it was a neat idea.

Vosges, Belgium and north-west:

I am guessing the wind on stage 2 was a tail wind? Maybe clarify so that the causation between wind and speed becomes clearer.
"the Tour ended", that sounds a bit like the entire Tour was over.
"who, on the straight slightly uphill finish, they" - scrap "they"; also clarify who they held off
"witnessed the valiant breakaway of Agostinho" - I'd choose a more neutral wording
"a further 11 down in third place" - add "seconds"

Massif and Chartreuse

Header: Add "Central"
"lost the green jersey by end" - "by the end of the stage"; also the comma afterwards is not necessary
"cloud covered final climb" - bit too much editorialising for my taste
"moved ahead of the Merckx" - either "Merckx group" or just "Merckx"
"limiting the loses" - losses
"Ocaña's Bic" - add "team"
"On short descent" - add "the"
"the group then passed the unused Désiré Letort of Bic, who had played a part in his team's concerted effort by breaking away alone earlier for a possible juncture with his leader" - I would scrap this altogether, this sentence doesn't lead anywhere, way too trivial. Would rephrase, "Soon after the descent, Merckx suffered a puncture..."
"set such a dominating pace" - again, more neutral wording
"up the Porte" - "Col de Porte"

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow still. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status query[edit]

Zwerg Nase, BaldBoris, where does this review stand? It has been open for about two and a half months, yet not a single edit has been done in response to what has been reviewed thus far, while the review is not yet complete. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both had quite a lot to do in the last couple of weeks, but I am confident that I'll be able to finish the review over the next couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase and BaldBoris - This review seems to have stalled: there haven't been any comments in months. If now isn't a good time, you might consider just withdrawing the nomination for now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for the reminder. The past weeks have been pretty hellish personal life wise... I am back on it and I hope BaldBoris will be as well :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ and Zwerg Nase: Sorry for the delays. I'll give it a shot and try to get over the finishing line. Bald Boris 16:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, Zwerg Nase, & BaldBoris, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, BaldBoris, I first posted a status query over three months ago, and BaldBoris has yet to make an edit to the article—indeed, the article hasn't been edited despite portions of this review having been posted in January. It's clear that this is not a good time for the issues raised by the review to be addressed. If this continues to be the case, I strongly recommend that the review be closed on July 3, six months to the day from when it was opened. Half a year is beyond generous. A new nomination can always be made once the issues raised here have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Any chance you will get to editing within the coming week? If so, I will continue the review, otherwise, I'll close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]