# Talk:2011 Tour de France

This years tour does not seem to have a Prologue. Thats rather unusual, can't remember there not being one. Can somebody with a good reference add that to the article? Calistemon (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Found one. Calistemon (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The following does not make sense but I can't work out what it's meant to say.
"The stage winner is awarded 8,000€. The money is given up to the first 20 finishers are awarded 200€. Should the stage be a time trial, the winner is awarded 10,000€ for the stage win. The money gradually decreases, with the 20th finisher receiving 200€. The intermediate sprint gives away 1,500€ to the first person to cross it, there is one sprint each stage. Money is also awarded for crossing the categorized climbs, for the best young rider of each stage, and the most combative rider, and the best team of the stage"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.119.225 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 

I have rewritten the section Racklever (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this article is written in the future tense - can this now be updated?  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Evans held the yellow jersey only in the last stage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.134.122.58 (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 

That's correct, and the article reflects that as far as I can see. The classification leadership table shows who held the jersey after the stage. If it showed who held it during that stage, the whole row would be blank for the first stage, which would be a little bit... awkward. Basically, it reflects who stood on the podium to collect which prize, and Evans went up to collect the yellow jersey twice – after the time trial, and on the podium in Paris. Were you referring to that section? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

all other pages on the tour de france up to 2010 list all the riders' standings in the general classification in a collapsable table below the top 10. this one needs one as well  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebi12 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) 

SODOIT Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Cycling/Tour-de-FranceCycling/Tour-de-France-t110000295
Triggered by \bladbrokes\.com\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Tour de France. 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/20120112023115/http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net:80/eta_tdf_2006/tdf2011.php to http://memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_2006/tdf2011.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Tour de France. 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/20130209134934/http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html to http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/tour-de-france-demystified-part-1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.letour.fr/us/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Tour de France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


### Review
I'll review this. Jack | talk page 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


### Findings
This a GA review of 2011 Tour de France. 
No worries on the WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures front with all four criteria passed:

it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria: 
it contains copyright infringements: 
it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}: 
the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page: 
As a result, a full review has been undertaken and the findings are as follows:

Article size is well over 100k but there is no WP:LENGTH issue as much of the content is in tabular form and the readable prose size is 24k, which is fine.
Excellent images in use, especially the route map.
Just out of interest, why do cycling teams change their names so often?
Unlike other sports, cycling is free to watch in person, so teams are reliant on sponsors. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Try to avoid redirects as in "Teams" where UCI ProTeam redirects to UCI WorldTeam. Which of these is correct here? If the former, then use a pipe.
ProTeam is the former name. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
State a brief reason for the obligation placed on the pro teams to enter the race. What would happen if one of them refused?
At least a fine. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Please pipe Bunch sprint into Glossary of cycling#bunch sprint. Same with Spring classics into Classic cycle races#Spring classics.
I've done that because they may become an articles in the future. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hushovd is described as the "world road race champion" but the link is to 2015 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race, four years later.
Fixed. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of grammar and syntax errors in "Route and stages" which should have been copyedited out. I've already done some of these but I'd like an editor to check for these and iron them out, thanks. For example, "...as early as the Pyrenees,". To celebrated the centenary...": rogue comma and "celebrated".
"...as early as the Pyrenees," is a quote.
Link to Brittany.
Fixed. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Please pipe Prologue (cycling) into Glossary of cycling#prologue.
Same as above. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I think a prologue should be briefly explained, thus: "instead of a prologue (i.e., individual time trial), the last occasion being in 2008". This is especially so given mention of "individual time trial" on the next line.
Done. BaldBoris
In the stage winners table, no flag for Garmin–Cervélo which is an American team. Seems inconsistent.
A teams country of registration isn't used for races, only in the UCI Road World Championships – Men's team time trial (since 2012). BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The "Race overview" and "Classification leadership" sections are well-written with a lot of information.
Useful tabulations to finish the article.
Could you please attend to the above points where necessary and I think this will pass. Placing on hold for seven days. Well done. Jack | talk page 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review. I have fixed what I can for the moment. Will be back tomorrow. BaldBoris 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It's fine now, Boris. I'm passing it per the checklist below. Very good work. All the best. Jack | talk page 18:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations): 

C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope: 

B. Length: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: