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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase ( talk · contribs) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I will review this. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( 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 fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

What needs to be done:

• Participating teams: The sentence on how World Tour teams are obliged to send a squad with the corresponding reference is missing here.
• Prologue: Put a citation at the end of the first paragraph or move the last sentence into the next paragraph.
• Stage 2: You do not make a causality between Bouhanni's behavior in the sprint and his relegation, this needs to be phrased a little more clearly.
• Stage 3: Writing The first stage at the start of the report sounds misleading. Better would be "The first part".
• Stage 5: if I can survive Saturday -> use a bracket paranthesis to explain which stage he is talking about.

I think that's it. I notive that you are away right now. Let me know when you are back, then you'll have seven days for all four reviews starting at that point. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 12:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Took care of everything myself. Passed. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply