Talk:Greg LeMond

message: I wanted to update you all that, building on our recent success in getting GA-status, Greg LeMond has been nominated for FA-status! That was always the plan when we started reviewing and enhancing the article last year, and so I believe it was appropriate to immediately request FA-status given it was the criteria to which we were editing this entire time. Please continue to improve the article, but make your edits according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and be sure to provide an incline citation for statistics and for any statements that are likely to be challenged or are otherwise considered controversial. 
Here you can find more on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and here you can review the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
I really want to thank everyone who has contributed to the article over time, and definitely want to encourage your ongoing participation in this process. Let's not rest until this article is recognized as an example of Wikipedia's very best work! joepaT 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really impressive the progress made on this article during the past six months. I hope you succeed in your effort to get it listed as a featured article! Azx2 15:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Greg LeMond]] nominated as Featured Article (FA)  

message: This image: :File:Greg LeMond 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia.jpg was recently added under the cc-by-2.0 licence. The source on Flickr uses the same licence. However, it seems to be a scan of a photo. 
The flickr user is only allowed to release this under the cc-by-2.0 licence if he is also the original photographer. Nothing indicates that he is... For the more thorough FA review that you seem to be planning, this may be a problem. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback on this, EdgeNavidad. I spoke with Turelio and he explained what had happened with the delete/undelete/delete cycle. Shame that the original flickr user was mistaken in their contribution of the image but your vigilance is appreciated. joepaT 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Marked as possible copyvio. Not sure how this was not picked up by the GA reviewer, who maybe a sock puppet for the nominator as they have already been accussed. BaldBoris 01:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo has been removed.  I believe the reviewer Azx2 is a cycling enthusiast, but that should not be confused with being a false front for another editor.  If you believe the article needs to be reviewed again, by all means.  Editor joepa and I are motivated to make the article as good as we can possibly make it.  We welcome anyone who would like to help improve the article, or who has criticism of the article in its style or what have you.  Nothing is written in stone.  If you believe the article does not meet criteria for Good Article status than challenge it.  If it doesn't meet the grade then the article will be downgraded and we will continue to try to improve it.  No surprise there.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I think it definitely needs to be resubmitted for GA status. After a quick scan have found large amounts of uncited text. BaldBoris 12:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I have renominated the article.  I would point out that the article does have 132 citations.  It would be helpful for you to mark the sections that you believe need to be further referenced with a  tag.  Thanks.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount makes no difference, especially when there's multiple citations. It's very simple, absolutely everything has to be referenced. Also I noticed that there is numerous wikilinks to the same article. For example La Vie Claire is linked three times in one section, when it should only be linked once in the whole article apart from the lead/infobox and palmares in this case. In my opinion this article isn't even ready to be nominated for good article status. BaldBoris 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better than the Bradly Wiggins article, isn't it?  A hell of a lot better.  Let's have someone else review it. Someone other than yourself. You don't seem to be particularly interested in making it a better article, which is the whole point of the Good Article process.  If you are interested in helping out, fine.  If not, than your energies are best directed elsewhere. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The GA review was obviously done with good intentions. It could have been more detailed, though: A GA reassessment could be beneficial. If I would have the time, I would be willing to do it, but alas. But, currently the wrong template is used on top of the page: a 'standard' GA review is requested, which should be a GA reassessment. I could replace the template, but I'm afraid it will affect transclusions on other pages or some things by bots that I don't understand and don't have the time to repair, so I take the easy solution and just mention it here... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bradley Wiggins? Wow how childish can you get. I never said I would review the article? This article has the most basic things wrong with it (leads too short, wikilinks, dates...). I'm trying to be constructive. I not sure what you're doing in your sandbox but i'm done here, I don't have the time or energy for this. BaldBoris 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit whinning.  You know exactly what I'm doing in my sandbox, not that you have any business looking into it.  You come over here and immediately start accusing people of bad motives, you are off asking for investigations, and for what?  That is not being constructive.  So you got called out and you don't like it.  Now you are the uber editor, with eight edits to the page in one day.  You either put away your animous and help or attend to your own business. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's calm down here guys... it's just an online encyclopedia page not the fiscal cliff debate. I would have to agree with what has been said about the article above, in that the article needs quite a bit of work to be listed as GA and I'd definitely recommend a peer review (personally I think the guy who listed was a bit too flowery with his review). The lead is not of adequate length to that it should be, I'd recommend at least three of four paragraphs and make sure they cover all of the main topics that you have in the article. I'm not sure if it's just me but the sources have an extreme amount of text in them (at the bottom).. which is strange. I personally don't like it when there are more than three citations at a certain point " Dimitri Konyshev and Sean Kelly on the line.[61][62][63]" and "time a cyclist received the honor.[65][66][67]." that is unnecessary in my opinion two is a solid number. The quotes that break up the text also bother me a great deal. And a lot of other stuff was addressed in the FA nom page which I was going to mention but you've already seen that there so.. yep. I like LeMond and he certainly deserves to have his article at GA status, but with the GA quality of work in it. Best of luck. Also I read the comments and BaldBoris definitely was not being arrogant, he's just trying to help. No need to be hostile. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions)  04:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: And you can't forget the alt text for the photos if you want this to go to FA status. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions)  00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is alt text? Can you explain? Better still, could you also make whatever edits you think are missing? Thanks! joepaT 22:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Never mind, DW - I saw your comments on my talk page. Thanks. But please feel free to make any edits you think need making, such as adding the alt text! We can use all the help we can get! Cheers! joepaT 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image licence problem? 

message: I'm not sure if all the citations are needed according to this. WP:LEADCITE BaldBoris 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BaldBoris, thanks for the feedback. If you're saying that it doesn't need to be cited in the lead b/c it's noncontroversial and can be cited in the body, that actually makes sense to me, though I would feel more comfortable leaving the citations pertaining to "...completing an improbable comeback by winning in dramatic fashion on the race's final stage." Do you make this recommendation in general, or as a specific component of the FA-status review? I noticed a momentary spark of argy-bargy there, but I think it's beyond fair to say that Gunbirdriver and I are extremely motivated to make this the best article that it can be and we're specifically interested in actionable feedback that we can respond to with direct edits to improve the entry. To that end, anything you can add about what should fall into an "Early Life" section on Greg LeMond would be appreciated. I'm not going to start a new section here on the talk page re. that yet, b/c it's brought up in the review, and I ask about it there. I didn't check if you'd contributed to LeMond's article or not, but regardless, we can always use the support and assistance of highly-motivated, capable editors, so please don't hesitate to dive right in and start improving anywhere that needs it. GBD and I have worked alone on this for several months and have a high level of committment to see this evolve into the best article it can be...joepaT 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead citations 

message: If there isn't any convincing objection, I'm going to try to work-in some detail on LeMond's past family issues and relate their origin to his having been the victim of sexual abuse, but not in any salacious or tabloid-esque style. Please feel free to help me out w/ this...joepaT 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life - family and individual issues 

message: GBD, since we've each edited the sub-heading for Bibliography differently, I wanted to discuss it here rather than simply going back and changing it again. I edited it initially to "Greg LeMond bibliography" based on information from the Wikipedia Manual of Style (see below - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Recommended_structure). Now I realize, however, that the proper sub-heading for our LeMond bibliography should be "Bibliography of works on Greg LeMond" (based on the bold-text below). Would you agree? joepaT 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, as it is the reference section, I think just "Bibliography" works, as it is a list of the books we are referencing in the article above.  I'm sure "Bibliography of works on Greg LeMond" would be fine as well, but it seems a tad much, as this is the article on Greg LeMond.  Either is fine with me though. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. I agree that "Bibliography" seems simpler, and preferable, but whenever we go for another FA-review, I don't want them to take issue w/ formatting that contravenes the MOS. joepaT 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: The final sentence of the intro (which I think we've done a good job expanding) reads as follows: 
"As the lone American winner of cycling's most prestigious race, LeMond has not enjoyed the public stature that might be expected of such a figure, but he continues to campaign publicly against doping and ineffective leadership by the UCI, the international federation for cycling. As recently as December 2012, LeMond even articulated a willingness to replace the UCI president on an interim basis if called to do so."
This could be persnickety, but I think we should qualify the phrase "ineffective leadership by the UCI" to make it clear to the reader that this is not an editorial position reflective of POV, but rather, how LeMond himself perceives the UCI executive. This could be achieved as simply as: "alleged-ineffective leadership by the UCI," or "what he perceives as ineffective leadership by the UCI" - thoughts? I didn't want to just change it w/o getting feedback first (if there's anyone who cares lol...). joepaT 18:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang it, Joe, you're taking us right into the weeds with this.  This is the most controversial aspect of the article, his position against doping, the back and forth, all the animus coming from Armstrong and Trek and the UCI, and then, woah, Greg was just being straight all along.  But then, that's my opinion of how things went, and there are people out there that think the UCI is golden and Greg is out of his league.  Well, Greg may be a tad naive, but he's on the money that the UCI needs to change.  I'd rather try to keep as neutral as possible, especially in the lead, and to do that I think we should avoid the statement above in the lead.  Let me think a bit on it. Maybe I could generate an alternative wording.  Still a lot of other things we could try to fix while we mull this lead statement over. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: let's just modify it to "alleged-ineffective leadership by the UCI," that way we're reporting on what LeMond is doing/saying and what his motivation is, but w/o taking a position on it. It would be different if we were promoting the view that the UCI sucks, which I honestly know that we're not trying to consciously do in this article. I actually don't think we fell into that trap but for this one instance, in which we basically agree w/ LeMond via what we've written, accepting his premise that the leadership of UCI is ineffective. I'm the one who added that in the first place, and I don't think I even realized at the time that to be fair to the UCI, I shouldn't repeat allegations against them as fact - even in a statement this subtle. joepaT 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminate POV from reference to "ineffective leadership by the UCI" in intro?

message: GBD and others, what do you think about the lead image as it currently is? SHould it be a contemporary pic of Greg like he is now (old) or a period pic of him as a racer, like what we had before when the article was heavily revised through our efforts? Just curious, b/c I don't like seeing a pic of the new old Greg as lead image. He's famous first and foremost for his career as a cyclist and I would expect to see a historical image as lead and not a contemporary one. But before changing it I thought I'd ask for feedback here on TP. Cheers joepaT 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one liked the image from the Tour better. I believe a shot of the subjects face is the manual of style preference. If we had one anywhere from 1985 to 1995 I would much prefer it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the Tour one more, too, GBD. I know what you mean re. the MOS, that it suggests a certain style of image, in 3/4 profile facing towards the article body text, and not looking away from it (so the current image of GL fails on the account, too). I'll have to look in my personal collection to see if the image(s) I have of GL and me from mid90s could in any way be cropped and made suitable for use as a better headshot, but I would much prefer returning to the Tour image en lieu of one of mine, or what's there now. I don't know who changed it to begin with, but hopefully they'll see this discussion and share their thoughts, but absent any other feedback after a short time I think we should move to restore a more suitable image. joepaT 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The lede image has again been changed by an editor without any prior discussion of the shift here, which, while not prohibited, doesn't necessarily produce an outcome in this case that I'm supportive of. User:Kaiketsu switched the main image to one of an old, non-athlete Greg LeMond from 2012 - an edit I don't necessarily endorse. However, I've asked them to engage in dialogue about the image here, and certainly invite feedback from BaldBoris and GBD and any other interested editors. joepaT 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I think the lead image should be as current as practical and reasonable until the person dies. When they're alive, they're an ongoing subject, and currency is important. When they're deceased, they become historical only, and the article can reflect that. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Image - old-looking GL from 2009 or a nice pic of him as a racer in his heyday? (Oct. 2014) 

message: There's been some instability in the lead around this one minor issue - whether or not to refer specifically to Lance and Floyd in the lead almost as contextual qualifiers when stating that LeMond is the only American TdF winner. Could we come to a consensus on whether or not to refer to Armstrong and Landis in the lead as two other American TdF winners who were stripped of their titles (leaving LeMond as only "official" winner)? At this point, I don't think it needs to be in the article and I'd probably revert it to how it was before the last IP's edit to change it, but would welcome some feedback. Azx2 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gunbirddriver, User:Joep01, user:BaldBoris et al would you weigh in on this? Thanks. Azx2 16:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Azx2, and would remove the disqualified riders from the lead of the article. The lead reads smoother without it. In my opinion this should be mentioned in the body of the text, but is not necessary in the lead.Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% shouldn't be in the lead. BaldBoris 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the responses, guys. I removed the following, but left the 'remains the only official winner' thing in there. Deleted: "(Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis were stripped of their victories due to doping violations)"  Cheers! Azx2 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to Armstrong and Landis in the Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Greg LeMond. 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/20140419011643/http://www.meathsports.ie/news/article/article/cycling-legend-greg-lemond-comes-to-meath.html?tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=09&tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=07&cHash=7ea35b30cd2b8d842eeefd06d6e57773 to http://www.meathsports.ie/news/article/article/cycling-legend-greg-lemond-comes-to-meath.html?tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=09&tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=07&cHash=7ea35b30cd2b8d842eeefd06d6e57773
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405025302/http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/race-guide/tour-de-france-legends-greg-lemond/ to http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/race-guide/tour-de-france-legends-greg-lemond/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215113213/http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/McQuaid-dismisses-LeMonds-claim-to-lead-UCI-51378313 to http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/McQuaid-dismisses-LeMonds-claim-to-lead-UCI-51378313
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625022446/http://cbs13.com/local/lance.armstrong.nevada.2.1054073.html to http://cbs13.com/local/lance.armstrong.nevada.2.1054073.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802021207/http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/ to http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802021207/http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/ to http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802021207/http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/ to http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802021207/http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/ to http://greglemond.com/cycling-legend/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021085430/http://limburg2012.nl/section.php?sid=news_en&news_vmd=svw&news_id=168 to http://www.limburg2012.nl/section.php?sid=news_en&news_vmd=svw&news_id=168
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113015653/http://archive.mensjournal.com/greg-lemond-vs-the-world to http://archive.mensjournal.com/greg-lemond-vs-the-world
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105073819/http://greglemond.com/innovations/ to http://greglemond.com/innovations/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024232633/http://www.ironcompany-fitness-news.com/hot-topics/fitness-industry-movers-and-shakers/hoist-fitness-to-purchase-lemond-fitness-announced-at-hfb-expo-2012/ to http://www.ironcompany-fitness-news.com/hot-topics/fitness-industry-movers-and-shakers/hoist-fitness-to-purchase-lemond-fitness-announced-at-hfb-expo-2012/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122063725/http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/open-letter-pat-mcquaid-greg-lemond to http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/open-letter-pat-mcquaid-greg-lemond
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150131220821/http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/402312/greg-lemond-interview-paul-kimmage to http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/402312/greg-lemond-interview-paul-kimmage
*Added  tag to http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/sports/display.htm?StoryID=100865
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105221007/http://greglemond.com/blog/patagonia-argentina-trip-1-of-2/ to http://greglemond.com/blog/patagonia-argentina-trip-1-of-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greg LeMond. 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/20160304003622/http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/04/10/LeMond_Sues_Trek_Citing_Feud_With_Lance.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/04/10/LeMond_Sues_Trek_Citing_Feud_With_Lance.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greg LeMond. 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/20150924125144/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=am9JkhotUrPs%2F to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=am9JkhotUrPs%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am confused about why this article achieved "good article" status. The lede was disorganized and there were major gaps in the section on anti-doping controversies. I have tried to address both problems. SunCrow (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely needs some work doing. I finally feel somewhat justified for what I said when it was put up for FAC. I know  mentioned he wanted to get working on this soon(ish). BaldBoris 23:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Abt's biography just arrived in the mail yesterday, so I will get to work on both the 1990 Tour and LeMond's article, as soon as I finished going over Poulidor's article so that he can appear in Recent deaths on the Main Page. He deserves it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Hey TDF editors, check this out.... The official Encyclopedia Brittanica article on Greg LeMond --- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Greg-LeMond
 
It says he finished 3rd in the 1983 TDF & then in 1984 he finished 2nd to Bernard Hinault before winning the Tour himself in 1985. Lololol I'm not kidding check it out!
I tried notifying them to tell them of these mistakes but they make you pay $8.99 a month in order to 'give feedback' on an article..... In any case I figured you TDF editors might want to know you do more due diligence than the supposed best of the best Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's pretty embarrassing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Maybe this will get their attention ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

text: and actually the first American to win the Tour was Marianne Martin 68.65.54.26 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica article on LeMond