Talk:2015 E3 Harelbeke

2015 E3 Harelbeke 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: July 30, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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.

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 E3 Harelbeke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably get to this over the weekend. One first thought: There is a large number of photos available from the event. You might want to look into adding 1-2 of them to the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Not too much wrong with this. These issues should be taken care of:

Lead: You don't need any references in the lead if you give the information later in the text. That's what you should do with the info concerning how it is a buildup for the Ronde Vlaanderen.
Poster: I find knickers a very colloquial and regional term. Maybe you can find a more neutral word, like underpants?
Pre-race favourites: The Sagan part references do not really say what you say when it comes to his form earlier in the season. Also, his Milan-San Remo result is not sourced.
"Paterberg−Oude Kwaremont": You should source the statement that this part is crucial.

Optional:

As I said, it would be nice if you included more of the photos available.
You could give information about how the route different from the previous year.

That's about it. Well done so far! I'll put this on hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary reference removed.
I've used "underwear" instead. "Underpants" doesn't seem right, somehow.
I've removed some detail that wasn't in the source for Sagan.
The Paterberg-Oude Kwaremont section is described as the key part of the race in "Route" – this is sufficient, no? It's supported by references there.
BaldBoris has added a couple of good photos.
I would describe any route changes, but it would by WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, I think, as I can't find it sourced anywhere.

Thanks for your review, as always! Relentlessly (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pass, congrats :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]