1971 Tour de France was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 21, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
1971 Tour de France was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be uncertainty about the total distance (and hence average velocity - the winning time is consistent in different sources):
The box on this page quotes:
The body text quotes:
The sum of the stage lengths on this page gives:
LeTour.fr gives:
AstroFloyd ( talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm just curious why it is ok to include the opinion on Lomme Driessens on this matter claiming that Zoetemelk & Van impe were workshy wheelsuckers but it's not ok to state the actual fact that Zoetemelk didn't have a single teammate in the top 50, often times only had 3 or 4 guys finishing the race on his team & was basically in an isolated position at all times early in his career? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 ( talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it was found out by researching the start list for the team that he rode on each year in the case of Zoetemelk.... And noticing that not only did most of his teammates not even finish the race but the ones who did were ranked around 90th place in the first 2 years.... In the subsequent years they fared slightly better but not by much and it wasn't until 1975 that he had a single teammate in either the top 30 or the top 50 I forget which... In any case you're not a wheelsucker if half your team doesn't finish the race and The other half can't even crack the top 50 year after year so if you're going to slander a rider using what some other DS said it's worth adding a counterpoint in the interest of partiality and being fair.... It didn't apply to Van Impe because he had strong riders on his teams often times including former Tour winners.... Then as far as Merckx and Driessens earlier yes I see your point but I only included it Because it was within 2 or 3 pages on the very same source that was cited which may not have been relevant but at the same time might be because it gives more insight between Merckx and driessens which is useful but I suppose not entirely necessary.... As i said i just happened to notice it in the source that was given Raleigh80Z90Faema69 ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Will review shortly!
Zwerg Nase (
talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
More to come, sorry for the long delay. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Vosges, Belgium and north-west:
Massif and Chartreuse
More to follow. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 10:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
1971 Tour de France was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 21, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
1971 Tour de France was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be uncertainty about the total distance (and hence average velocity - the winning time is consistent in different sources):
The box on this page quotes:
The body text quotes:
The sum of the stage lengths on this page gives:
LeTour.fr gives:
AstroFloyd ( talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1971 Tour de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm just curious why it is ok to include the opinion on Lomme Driessens on this matter claiming that Zoetemelk & Van impe were workshy wheelsuckers but it's not ok to state the actual fact that Zoetemelk didn't have a single teammate in the top 50, often times only had 3 or 4 guys finishing the race on his team & was basically in an isolated position at all times early in his career? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 ( talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it was found out by researching the start list for the team that he rode on each year in the case of Zoetemelk.... And noticing that not only did most of his teammates not even finish the race but the ones who did were ranked around 90th place in the first 2 years.... In the subsequent years they fared slightly better but not by much and it wasn't until 1975 that he had a single teammate in either the top 30 or the top 50 I forget which... In any case you're not a wheelsucker if half your team doesn't finish the race and The other half can't even crack the top 50 year after year so if you're going to slander a rider using what some other DS said it's worth adding a counterpoint in the interest of partiality and being fair.... It didn't apply to Van Impe because he had strong riders on his teams often times including former Tour winners.... Then as far as Merckx and Driessens earlier yes I see your point but I only included it Because it was within 2 or 3 pages on the very same source that was cited which may not have been relevant but at the same time might be because it gives more insight between Merckx and driessens which is useful but I suppose not entirely necessary.... As i said i just happened to notice it in the source that was given Raleigh80Z90Faema69 ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Will review shortly!
Zwerg Nase (
talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
More to come, sorry for the long delay. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Vosges, Belgium and north-west:
Massif and Chartreuse
More to follow. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 10:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.