Talk:Igor González de Galdeano

Good Article Review

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

More specific comments

• Criteria #1: Well written.

• Prose:

• General:

• Copy edit needed. In the intro I saw a missing commas: is a Spanish, former professional
• run by: verbiage such as that could be replaced by a word like 'operated', look for other examples of excessive wordiness.
• It was in this Tour: Phrases worded such as this could be replaced by something like: During the Tour

• Intro

• González de Galdeano became a key rival of Lance Armstrong in the middle of his Tour de France supremacy. Not to be nitpicky but that sentence is rather unclear as to who was dominating the Tour de France, I know it seems like common knowledge that Armstrong was but many readers may not know that.

• 'Early racing career'

• This parenthetical: (which is now Euskaltel-Euskadi). Probably a bit wordy, lose what I crossed out.
• Try to avoid vague terminology such as and a number of or similar wording. Use your sources to make statements more specific.
• sprints and mountains classifications: Wouldn't that be sprint and mountain classifications?
• Early in the season, González de Galdeano won stage five: This needs context, stage five of what?

• 'O.N.C.E. and the Armstrong rivalry'

• and hencing coining his nickname, Speedy González.: and hence, . . .
• Word choice: Battle was resumed. Better word than 'battle' needed.
• Although Armstrong did overhaul González de Galdeano and Beloki to claim his fourth Tour, O.N.C.E. improved their performance over the previous year: Beloki moved up a step on the podium to second and was clearly Armstong's principal threat, González de Galdeano once again finished fifth, and with strong riding from team mate José Azevedo, who finished sixth, O.N.C.E. were able to claim the team competition: See the notes below on this sentence but it needs to be split up as well, it's just too long.
• palmarès: This doesn't seem to be a commonly used foreign word in English, consider replacing with the English equivalent.

• 'Retirement'

• , González de Galdeano combines studying at Basque Institute of Physical Education (IVEF) with being a technical secretary at the Euskaltel-Euskadi team, where he had started his professional career in 1995.: Needs rewritten, not correctly structured for subject-verb agreement.

• 'Palmares'

• See my other comments about this section title.
• The whole section is a giant list, and I don't even think it is necessary, see below.

• Structure

• "Palmares'? Section title is confusing, not sure what that means myself.

• MOS

• Overall, no huge problems.

• Jargon

• Some explanation of racing related terms may be necessary for the average reader: stage, sprints, time-trials are just a few examples.

• Criteria #2: Verifiable

• References

• The citations in the middle of sentences are hugely distracting to the reader, consider moving them to the end of the applicable sentence.
• Article relies largely on one source, not horrible but other sources should be looked for.

• Inline citations

• Seemed to be used in the pertinent places

• Reliable

• Overall, yes, save the POV issues.

• Original research

• Meets the qualifications.

• Criteria #3: Thoroughness

• Major aspects

• There isn't a word about his first 22 years of life. only 1995 to present are covered.

• Focus

• Despite his excellent time-trialling skills, González de Galdeano eventually missed out on claiming the overall victory of the race when he lost nearly four minutes to the eventual race winner Jan Ullrich on the penultimate stage,: It is not necessary to justify the lost with a "he lost but he is really good at". It's not relevant nor really tied to the loss. His skills at time trialling are separate from any individual time trial, otherwise this sentence gives the impression that it was written by a fan for fans.
• 'Palmares': This section is not necessary, it's a list anyway, which does meet the "well written" criteria for a GA. Secondly, I would say it is completely unnecessary to have every result of every race he ever participated in.

• Criteria #4: NPOV

• Fair representation

• Yet, González de Galdeano saved his best for the Vuelta a España in September: This is definitely subjective, unless you can use citations to make it true realtive to, say, the season you are talking about.
• See Comment under Criteria #3 above.
• Lose POV such as: Nevertheless, González de Galdeano had an excellent Vuelta and riased his profile immeasurably.

POV: (unless it can be backed up as I noted above) Following a lacklustre 2000 season and the demise of the Vitalicio Seguros squad

• excellent time-trialling skills: adjective such as 'excellent' should be avoided, let the reader decide if his skills are "excellent" based upon the facts and their citations.
• small rivalry: again, avoid using subjective terminology. Just say rivalry, let the reader decide its size.
• González de Galdeano beat Armstrong in the time-trial[18] and, following an intense ride by Armstrong in the mountains, eventually finished second in the general classification to him: You shouldn't phrase a sentence in a way that is meant to make the subject look better despite a negative outcome.
• Word choice: Words like 'Although' and 'however' are sneaky POV words.
• Although Armstrong did overhaul González de Galdeano and Beloki to claim his fourth Tour, O.N.C.E. improved their performance over the previous year: One has nothing to do with the other.

• All significant views

• Reads mostly like it was written by a supporter of Galdeano, once fixed for POV it will probably be alright.

• Criteria #5: Stable

• Does not appear to be the subject of ongoing edit wars.

• Criteria #6: Images

• Tags/captions

• The source site on the image page is a broken link that leads to an underconstruction notice. It is impossible to verify the copyright of the image.

• Lack of

• The table at the bottom, with the "bronze" notation, doesn't really make sense or add much to the article.

• Free use

• Cannot determine.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Igor González de Galdeano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070724045458/http://www.cycling-history.org/articles/Basque%20Lay%20out.pdf to http://www.cycling-history.org/articles/Basque%20Lay%20out.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Igor González de Galdeano. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019210021/http://www.bicirace.com/news/2005/20050908.html to http://www.bicirace.com/news/2005/20050908.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404132651/http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/personNews_lng0_spo18_prs14002.shtml to http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s18/personnews_lng0_spo18_prs14002.shtml

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)