Wikipedia:Peer review/1906 Tour de France/archive1

1906 Tour de France

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on a road cycling race article. In WikiProject Cycling, there is need for standardisation of articles. There currently is one featured article on a cycling race, (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race), but this is about a one-day event and not about a stage race. Many articles in this project are about cycling stage races. I would like to have feedback on the general standard of a road cycling stage race article, and chose the 1906 Tour de France as an example. I chose the 1906 Tour de France article because I think it is close to the preferred style, but this is just my opinion. The 1903–1911 Tour de France articles have the same style.

Although feedback on the content would also be nice, I am really asking for feedback on the general layout. Some things about the layout:

• The infobox is standard for the wikiproject.
• In the lead, the most important aspects of the race and the overall winner are mentioned.
• Then a section with changes from the previous version.
• Then a section with race details.
• Then a section with results, divided in two sections:
  • Stage results, where for each stage the date, stage type, length, winner and race leader is given.
  • Overall results, where for each cyclist that finished the race the rank, country, name, team/sponsor and points/time is given.

The first cyclist is indicated in bold and with a yellow colour. Yellow because in cycling this indicates the leader of the general classification in the Tour de France.

The other rows have alternating background colours. (I don't know why, but this was chosen once.)

Only the top ten ranked cyclists are directly shown, the rest is collapsed.

• • After that, the other classifications are mentioned, preferably with the top 10 in a table. In this case, the only other classification was the team classification, and only the winner is known, so no table is used.

Everything here is open for discussion. From the big outline to the smallest details, such as which hyphens to use, where to add/remove spaces, table alignment. What would please me the most are remarks that are not specific to the 1906 Tour de France article, but that apply to all cycling race layouts.

Thanks, EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

First, I found the article rather slight, lacking in detail. Secondly, I don't think the structure of the article is right, and thirdly, the prose is rather rough and, in many cases, unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. I have provided a list of detailed comments, mainly relating to the prose, but your main tasks, I believe, are to expand and restructure the article. Here is my suggestion for a revised structure:-

• Lead, written as a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD
• A Background section, briefly summarising what happened in earlier tours, and bringing in the reasons for the changes made for the 1906 tour. You should also mention here the reasons for the protests which had apparently disrupted earlier tours and which continued in 1906.
• A section giving a general description of the 1906 course, not over-detailed, but so that the reader gets a better idea of the sequence of the stages and their characters.
• A section introducing the main riders. It would be good to know more about these guys, their career backgrounds and previous performances on the Tour
• Main section giving details of the race. We don't need an overdetailed stage by stage account, but try to expand on interesting features; for example, the dismissal of four riders for taking the train sounds quite a story. This section should be the core of the article.
• An Aftermath section, briefly describing the effect this race had on the subsequent history of the tour, and perhaps mentioning something about the future careers of the main 1906 riders.
• The tables

The following are my detailed prose points. Some of these will be lost in the rewriting/expansion, but they give you an idea of where I think the prose problems lie, and should help you in tour rewriting:-

• • Examples of non-encyclopedic prose in the lead include "spectators still got a good laugh", "didn't", and "obliterating the opposition"
  • I think the "point system" should be the "points system"
  • The "winning time" in the infobox doesn't give a winning time
  • More precise prose needed, for example "the introduction of mountains" should read "the introduction of mountain stages"
  • Ungrammatical sentence: "The point system in the 1905 Tour de France had been successful enough in reducing cheating, that the Tour organizers used it again in the 1906 Tour de France."
  • Unencyclopedic: "It was however changed a little bit". You shouldalso explain the nature of the changes that were made.
  • "completely" is unnecessary emphasis
  • A clearer explanation is needed for the way in which the race classification was "cleaned up". I think you mean that the points for the first eight stages were redistributed among the remaining riders in accordance with their positions in those stages. If this is the case, it should be stated plainly, avoiding phrases like "cleaned up".
  • Alsace-Lorraine does not need a "the". Its German name at the time was Elsass-Lothringen.
  • "The 1906 saw..." presumably should be "The 1906 Tour saw"
  • What was the purpose of the protests that disrupted the first stage?
  • What does the phrase "direct concurrents" mean?
  • "several minutes" is vague - isn't the exact time known?
  • Awkward prose: "he was halfway already leading by one hour" Suggest: "...he was leading by one hour at the halfway point"
  • Again awkward: "When the first other cyclists passed him..."
  • And again: "Trousselier however refound himself in the second half, and won the 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th stage, and was suddenly going towards second place." Possibly amend to "Trousselier, however, rediscovered his form in the second half of the race, won the 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th stages, and was challenging for second place."
  • "...the race was closed with two timed laps". I think you mean "was followed by two timed laps" - you could describe them as "exhibition laps"
  • Careless: "Hundred cyclist had entered themselves..." You mean "One hundred cyclists had entered..." ("themselves" is redundant)

Please note that I am not able to watch peer review pages, so if you wish to take up any point with me, I will respond if you ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback! The comments about structure are really helpful, I will use them for other Tour de France articles. It is hard to get information on this event more than 100 years ago, so expansion will be difficult until I find a new source. The prose comment will be dealt with after the structure is reorganized. Other reviewers: this is enough information for me, I will now try to Archive this review. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)