Talk:2013 Paris–Nice

2013 Paris–Nice 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: August 29, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:2013 Paris–Nice/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 08:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (

   focused

   ):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Teams

• "Among the 184-rider start list was only one previous winner of the race, with 2000 race winner" - reptition of winner

Prologue

• Wikilink roleurs

Stage 1

• The last part of the first paragraph is not cited
• "made the early breakaway from the field, and managed to e* xtend their advantage to the main field" - reptition of the word field
• "an increase of pace in the peloton caused it to split apart," - I know what it split apart means but separate would be better

Stage 2

• "and the rest." would be better as and the rest of the field

Stage 3

• "The climb itself was seen as the pivotal point of the day's action, whether the sprinters could stay with the main field before the descent back into Brioude." - needs a reference

Stage 5

• "mainly second-category and third-category climbs compared to the first-category finishing climb" - better mainly second and third-category climbs compared to the first-category finishing climb
• "some nine minutes in arrears of the overnight leader Garmin–Sharp's Andrew Talansky." - some nine minutes behind the overnight leader Garmin-Sharp's Andrew Talansky

Stage 6

• The last part of this section's first paragragh needs a citation
• "With 64 points, Tschopp held a 40-point lead over Argos–Shimano's Thierry Hupond, with only ten points left to be taken at the finish of the following day's individual time trial at Col d'Èze." - ditto

Stage 7

• "Evaldas Šiškevičius of the Sojasun team was next to hold top spot," - first place
• "Indeed, Quintana's time" - remove Indeed

References

• no dead links

On hold until all the issues I have raised are checked. MWright96 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should hopefully be resolved. Craig(talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all points have been resolved. Happy to promote to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]