![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() |
Main pages |
---|
Project organization |
Taskforces |
Good article reassessment for 2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 12 to Stage 21
2009 Giro d'Italia, Stage 12 to Stage 21 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 2011 Tirreno–Adriatico
2011 Tirreno–Adriatico has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
There are now several links to this non-existent article, which would seem to me to be enough to justify its existence. Can anyone start on this? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Article Importance Reassessment for Romain Bardet
Romain Bardet is a cyclist who has won 4 Tour de France stages, its mountains classification, a combativity award, and podiumed twice in this race. Bardet has also won several stages in La Vuelta, a stage race, and the silver medal for the road race at the Olympics. While I don't think the article should be classified as Top importance, I think it would be reasonable to place it in the Mid importance category. I would appreciate any comments on this matter. Thanks - TheTrueShaman (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think with his achievements we could even put him in High. I think most World Tour riders would fit the rating of Mid for "Subject is only notable within a particular subset of cycling or has achieved notability in only a particular region" being notable in a certain region. While Bardet is "Subject is extremely notable" but many non-cycling people will not know of his name (but has not achieved mainstream notability). Paulpat99 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that sounds good, I've edited the talk page to reflect this. On this topic, I have found a few pages other pages which need reassessment. Notably, Eddy Merckx, who is listed on WP:WikiProject Cycling/Assessment as an example of a top importance page, is only listed as high importance. I think that for someone who is often considered the best to ever race, he should definitely be included within the category. Other similar people who could be considered for moving into the Top category (which currently has no people) could be Bernard Hinault, Miguel Induráin, Jacques Anquetil, Lance Armstrong (who was, and perhaps still is, the face of cycling from outside) and perhaps even the more recent Mark Cavendish and Peter Sagan.
- Raymond Poulidor is currently missing any assessment, and I'm definitely thinking of putting him in the High importance tier. Nairo Quintana should probably also have his assessment raised to the High category. As before, I'd appreciate your input on all of these, as I am quite unfamiliar with this WikiProject, and have my own biases. TheTrueShaman (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, yeah I agree with all your assessments. I think as a whole a lot of pages need re-assessment, I am also not too experienced in this rating of pages but your suggestions make sense with the descriptions listed. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey I've gone ahead again and updated the ratings of most of those that I listed above except Miguel Induráin, Jacques Anquetil, Mark Cavendish, and Peter Sagan, because I feel I am too ingrained in the culture, and thus not aware of whether or not they have received "international and/or mainstream notability". If you have opinions on these cases, I invite you to update the pages, but I personally don't feel comfortable with these. Thanks for your help, and sorry for bothering you again. TheTrueShaman (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, yeah I agree with all your assessments. I think as a whole a lot of pages need re-assessment, I am also not too experienced in this rating of pages but your suggestions make sense with the descriptions listed. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.