510:, and will probably show (didn't check but I believe you) that Agnoli wore the white jersey. But we show the leadership progress in a table, and if somebody wants to verify the table, do you want them to visit all 84 links to check where the information is? The sources are in the article, but not next to the table, so how would a reader know which source was used for this? I think it is just service to our readers, to add one extra source to this table, so it is clear where the information comes from.--
171:
405:
I highly, highly doubt anyone would disbelieve or challenge the article because it didn't have notations by visual aids. I passionately hate this assertion that we apparently write articles we don't expect anyone to read (else, why would it be so necessary to source the table? The sources are present when the facts, which the table is meant to
662:
322:
417:, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations." (emphasis in original) I contend that the material present in the two tables is not likely to be challenged, particularly (but not only) considering that articles are used as references in the prose of the article that support everything these tables show.
530:
Call it a generalized resistance to change, for better or worse. We've never had to do it this way. It's never been considered necessary, even in articles reviewed to GA and FA status. Do I expect the "reader" (tell me we're not writing and reviewing articles no one is apparently expected to read) to
762:
article. Reviewers thought the section was incomplete without all points included, and didn't want it to scroll for ages. I did not *just* do anything, by the way, that section has been that way for months. So can no article ever have a collapsible section, then? You have hands down the strangest GA
598:
Nothing is sourced only in another article. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant that some text which the table illustrates occurs on the other articles. The minutiae of who wears which jersey when for 21 straight days is really not something that this article can comfortably handle in prose (which
428:
I agree with
Sandman888 that these tables should be sourced, but I think one source per table should be enough. If anybody wants to check if the distance reported for stage 12 is correct, they can do it by following the link and checking the distance. In fact, I just did, and the source reports that
404:
You know what, I think I'm actually going to dispute that these need copious sourcing. Only contentious facts must be sourced to the gills each and every single time they appear in an article. There's nothing contentious in either of these tables, and adequate sourcing exists in the article already.
367:
It needs to be verifiable so those that are referenced to the stage recap pages needs to go into the appropiate table. That is a no-brainer. Regarding those who were used in prose, I believe it should be as clear as possible what is sourcing what, so yes, they should be repeated. Regarding text, it
465:
If stage lengths listed were incorrect (sources change constantly before an event is run, as likely the plans for the stages themselves also change. I thought I had them all correct, but perhaps not), that's a distinct issue. I don't understand why , , and earlier in the article are so woefully
274:
Well, the point is that several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders dropped out. Do you suggest an alternate phrasing? I guess "several cyclists who would have been considered overall contenders" is the most technically accurate phrasing, but it's not at all concise, and I
363:
near them? Actually, it wouldn't be sequential numbers, since there are citations for each stage in the "race overview" section. That's the regular text size in the leadership table that's standard on all race articles. I wouldn't be sure how to change it, and what's exactly the problem with it
429:
the distance is 206 km, while the article says 191 km, so this shows the importance of the sourcing. (Somebody should check the rest.) The classification leadership table also needs a source, so I added one, such that
Sandman888 (and other readers) can check if
108:
No extra special reason. Amsterdam submitted a proposal to RCS Sport to host the Giro, since they wanted to, and RCS Sport said yes. Washington, DC is currently trying to do likewise, which would obviously be an even more spectacular
163:"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and sport articles gladly violate that, emphasising nationality. But that's just one thing, more importantly "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear
153:
Well, I'm not going to edit an infobox without input from the
Project. And, I still don't see where flags don't have nation names with them. Unless you want "Ivan Basso (Italy)" strongly ahead of "Ivan Basso (ITA)" and so
857:
are quite clear. Which bit of "(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" do you not understand? There is no mention there of
629:
Not my image. I'm not wild about including it in the article at all, but I kept it in since someone added it months ago before my wide-scale revision. I'm not that good at manipulating images anyway.
599:
is the whole reason why we have the stages articles). I'm also not using the stage articles as a reference - the references are cyclingnews articles. Perhaps too much use of the word "article"
230:
is used on over 4,000 pages, indicating widespread satisfaction (if not explicit consensus) to its usage. Even if I could edit it, I wouldn't without significant discussion.
531:
check 84 links to verify one fact? Frankly, yes. Why else do we even have them? If the reader actually read the flipping article, he'd find those citations just fine.
720:
Sorry, yes that is what I meant by the above comment. I've re-read it, I do not know much about the sport tbh, but I can't really find anything to quibble about.
66:
357:
62:
354:
47:
743:
Nosleep what did you do in the end? Btw "Points earned in the Giro d'Italia" cannot have a collapsible section as it wont show on mobiles etc.
794:
Quite ridiculous
Sandman: by what authority do you outlaw a facility whose use is explained, and therefor surely condoned, if not encouraged,
584:
If you referenced some of it by wikilinking to another article, then it isn't good enough. Those refs needs to be in this article as well.
39:
579:
306:
Ok. I suppose that makes sense. They've thrown the book at him, but he still hasn't been formally stripped of anything from the '09 Giro.
390:
want 21 consecutive citations by each table? Or would it be 50 citations for the leadership table (the number of cells in the table)?
520:
443:
821:. This article clearly meets them and should be passed straight away. You have no reason to impose your own arbitrary standards.
303:
I just believe that when someone is alleged to have been doped the phrasing is "a doping incident" and not "his doping incident".
189:
Actually there's very good reason to give nationality. Stage wins and overall finishes in the Giro contribute points to the
779:
708:
615:
554:
482:
246:
194:
17:
862:. If you cannot understand the criteria or refuse to apply them, then please recuse yourself from this review.
55:
207:
Much better, but I don't understand why the rider has to go in between flag and country name, it looks odd.
466:
insufficient to back up that Agnoli was wearing the white jersey for three stages (to use your example).
867:
826:
516:
439:
296:"was suspended by his national federation in February for his doping incident in the 2009 Giro" -: -->
893:
889:
844:
840:
814:
748:
744:
725:
721:
683:
679:
637:
633:
589:
585:
373:
369:
344:
340:
283:
279:
224:
212:
208:
180:
176:
144:
140:
90:
86:
803:
759:
383:
32:
401:(outdent) actually pretty well covers the first table. Where should it be placed the second time?
300:
Why is vague better than specific? Which part of the first phrase do you intend to have replaced?
678:
Sorry I've been slow, but I couldn't find much in the first read and not in the second either.
773:
702:
609:
548:
476:
240:
190:
122:
863:
822:
511:
434:
854:
818:
795:
353:
Both tables are simply visual representations of text that appears either here or on the
339:
Route and stages table + "Classification leadership" 1st table. Again, avoid small text.
799:
430:
410:
315:"skipped the Giro to better focus on the Tour de France, just as he did in 2009" -: -->
128:
Where are they not? I'm usually the one who's most adamant about this among my
Project.
881:
877:
167:
to the first use of the flag icon" and that is the full name. If you don't know what
871:
848:
830:
807:
786:
752:
729:
715:
687:
641:
622:
593:
561:
525:
489:
448:
377:
348:
287:
253:
216:
184:
148:
94:
764:
693:
600:
539:
467:
231:
360:. There's no one conspicuous citation that covers any of them. Do you really want
888:. Remember to remain civil in future discussions. 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
859:
836:
433:
was really wearing the white jersey after stages 4 to 6. I checked, he was.--
413:: " are required by Knowledge's verifiability policy for statements that are
193:, which is in turn used to determine how many riders each nation gets at the
201:
makes the usage totally incomprehensible, but I'll edit it all the same.
692:
So are you done then? Not much to address, which is a good thing :)
364:
anyway? Sorry if I sound snappish, I really just don't understand.
198:
170:
839:
which is an official guideline, which the help section is not.
336:
Which one? I don't see any conspicuously unsourced material.
884:
page is not required, neither is WP:Scroll and this can be
74:
43:
876:
Criteria now updated/clarified per the discussion on
763:standards of any reviewer I've ever come across.
382:So would you have opposed the FA nomination of
8:
758:I was following the example of the FA-class
125:, flags should be adjacent to country name.
538:big a deal. I just don't really like it.
316:"as he also did in the previous season."
204:Ruh oh, it introduces more "small text."
105:Why does it start in the Netherlands?
415:challenged or likely to be challenged
7:
175:is, I doubt (ITA) makes more sense.
139:Both of above is from the infobox.
580:File:Girod'Italia2010Amsterdam.jpg
24:
660:
368:is hard to read on other media.
320:
169:
197:. And I'm not sure the link to
872:15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
849:14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
831:11:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
808:07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
787:17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
753:07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
730:21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
716:19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
688:09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
642:22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
623:16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
594:05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
562:04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
526:07:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
490:16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
449:07:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
386:? And, just to be clear, you
378:22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
349:22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
333:the stats-table is unsourced
288:22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
254:16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
217:05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
185:22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
149:22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
817:, suggest that you read the
195:UCI Road World Championships
133:Try avoiding the small text
18:Talk:2010 Giro d'Italia
796:in Knowledge's help section
95:21:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
923:
578:images: consider cropping
534:But whatever. It's not
278:Notable is fine then.
297:"a doping incident"
835:I suggest you read
409:, occur in prose).
760:2009 Giro d'Italia
632:I did it for you.
384:2009 Giro d'Italia
785:
714:
621:
560:
524:
488:
447:
362:
252:
191:UCI World Ranking
914:
880:talkpage. Since
782:
776:
771:
769:
711:
705:
700:
698:
668:
664:
663:
618:
612:
607:
605:
557:
551:
546:
544:
514:
485:
479:
474:
472:
437:
361:
328:
324:
323:
249:
243:
238:
236:
229:
223:
174:
173:
79:
70:
51:
922:
921:
917:
916:
915:
913:
912:
911:
780:
774:
765:
709:
703:
694:
661:
659:
616:
610:
601:
555:
549:
540:
483:
477:
468:
321:
319:
275:don't like it.
271:remove notable
247:
241:
232:
227:
221:
168:
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
920:
918:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
756:
755:
739:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
674:
672:
671:
670:
669:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
627:
626:
625:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
532:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
431:Valerio Agnoli
421:
420:
419:
418:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
331:
330:
329:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
268:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
202:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
131:
130:
129:
118:
117:
113:
112:
111:
110:
102:
101:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
919:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
861:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
783:
777:
770:
768:
761:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
717:
712:
706:
699:
697:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
667:
658:
657:
654:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
628:
624:
619:
613:
606:
604:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
577:
576:
563:
558:
552:
545:
543:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
522:
518:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
491:
486:
480:
473:
471:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
450:
445:
441:
436:
432:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
416:
412:
408:
403:
400:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
359:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
335:
334:
332:
327:
318:
317:
314:
305:
304:
302:
301:
299:
298:
295:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
273:
272:
270:
269:
265:
264:
255:
250:
244:
237:
235:
226:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
172:
166:
162:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
138:
137:
135:
134:
132:
127:
126:
124:
120:
119:
115:
114:
107:
106:
104:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
885:
766:
757:
738:
695:
673:
665:
602:
541:
535:
469:
414:
406:
387:
325:
233:
164:
83:
82:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
864:Jezhotwells
855:GA criteria
823:Jezhotwells
819:GA criteria
512:EdgeNavidad
435:EdgeNavidad
355:stage recap
225:flagathlete
44:visual edit
890:Sandman888
860:MOS:SCROLL
841:Sandman888
837:MOS:SCROLL
815:Sandman888
745:Sandman888
722:Sandman888
680:Sandman888
634:Sandman888
586:Sandman888
407:illustrate
370:Sandman888
341:Sandman888
280:Sandman888
209:Sandman888
177:Sandman888
141:Sandman888
123:WP:Mosflag
87:Sandman888
800:Kevin McE
656:percent.
136:Example?
84:Reviewer:
27:GA Review
781:Contribs
710:Contribs
655:% -: -->
646:Coolies.
617:Contribs
556:Contribs
521:Contribs
484:Contribs
444:Contribs
248:Contribs
165:adjacent
109:opening.
882:the MoS
767:Nosleep
696:Nosleep
603:Nosleep
542:Nosleep
470:Nosleep
411:WP:CITE
234:Nosleep
116:Infobox
67:history
48:history
34:Article
886:passed
878:WP:GAN
154:forth.
358:pages
76:Watch
16:<
894:talk
868:talk
853:The
845:talk
827:talk
804:talk
775:Talk
749:talk
726:talk
704:Talk
684:talk
666:Done
638:talk
611:Talk
590:talk
550:Talk
536:that
517:Talk
478:Talk
440:Talk
374:talk
345:talk
326:Done
284:talk
266:Main
242:Talk
213:talk
181:talk
145:talk
121:Per
100:Lead
91:talk
63:edit
40:edit
798:.
199:ITA
870:)
847:)
829:)
806:)
778:·
751:)
728:)
707:·
686:)
640:)
614:·
592:)
553:·
519:·
481:·
442:·
388:do
376:)
347:)
286:)
245:·
228:}}
222:{{
215:)
183:)
147:)
93:)
65:|
46:|
42:|
896:)
892:(
866:(
843:(
825:(
802:(
784:)
772:(
747:(
724:(
713:)
701:(
682:(
636:(
620:)
608:(
588:(
559:)
547:(
523:)
515:(
487:)
475:(
446:)
438:(
372:(
343:(
282:(
251:)
239:(
211:(
179:(
143:(
89:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
