Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greg LeMond/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:29, 13 January 2013 [1].

Greg LeMond[edit]

Featured article candidates/Greg LeMond/archive1

Nominator(s): joepa^T 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Greg LeMond for featured article status because it is representative of Wikipedia's very best work and complies fully with Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. This well-written, comprehensive and timely article has been vigorously & thoroughly researched and reflects the relevant coverage of the topic, and all claims presented therein (supported by properly-formatted citations) can be verified against countless and innumerable high-quality reliable sources. The article is neutral, and stable, and it has undergone more than a month's worth of intense review and consensus-driven enhancement in preparation for this nomination.

Furthermore, the article conforms to Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, and the lead (summary) section is an excellent example for BLP's covering individuals like the subject, whose accomplishments are in the field of professional sport. The structure of the article is appropriate and it includes a useful - and not overwhelming - table of contents that serves as a helpful road-map for the reader. Special attention has been paid by the editors to ensuring that citations are formatted consistently and in a manner that provides useful reference points to those readers interested in further study. Lastly, the article makes outstanding use of succinctly-captioned images that provide wonderful visual context for the material, and respect all copyright rules/regulations (I know because I personally negotiated the licensing and inclusion of each image that was sourced externally but then added to the wikimedia commons specifically to support this article!). My collaborators and I eagerly await your review and decision, and we thank you for your time. joepa^T 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article seems to be more about LeMond the cyclist and has nothing about LeMond the person. In its current form, the article looks as if it should be renamed "Cycling career of Greg LeMond" as it would be a lot easier to rename than to spend many weeks researching his early life. At two paragraphs, the lede is too short for an article which is knocking on the door of 100,000 bytes and is not a true reflection of the body see WP:LEAD. It appears we have a brief mention of his early life within the lede, but absolutely no mention at the start of the body; it simply launches straight into his career. Sorry, but this is not a biography, more a prose list of sporting highlights, and career achievements. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems logical that the bulk of professional's article would be about their profession—that's what makes them encyclopedic. A musician's article is mostly about their musical career, an actor's article is mostly about their acting career, and so on. Take a look at other FAs of athletes such as Dominik Hašek, Derek Jeter, and so on. You have a brief section for Early Life, and then the bulk. Your point about organization is correct; Early Life should be first. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LB, great to see you back! I agree that the bulk should be about his profession, my oppose is because it tells us nothing about him as a person early on so you simply start off reading about his cycling career and your left with a whole load of questions. When did he first become interested in cycling, what triggered his interests, schooling, family, etc. I like to read about the whole person, not just about what they are famous for. My interpretation of a biography is just that. If the article is organised like that chronologically, with an extended lede to fully summerise the full body of the text, then I would be happy to embrace it at FAC. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto and Laser_brain, thanks for the feedback thus far, happy to make the improvements you suggest as this is a long-term project for us and well within the scope of our competencies and knowledge - and our access to research done by others. One question - how to best distinguish b/w the subject as general person, vs. what they're notable for, which, in this case, is principally sporting achievement. For example, to what degree should scandal in the person's personal life be included in their wikipedia biography? We have not made major mention of the abuse LeMond suffered as a child, nor its later impact on his family life, bouts of substance abuse, marital discord, etc. W/ respect to questions about how they came to the sport, is that not answered in the first sentence to the early career, here: LeMond's introduction to [[cycling]] came thanks to [[freestyle skiing]] pioneer [[Wayne Wong (skier)|Wayne Wong]] in 1975.<ref>{{cite book|last=LeMond|first=Greg|title=Greg LeMond's complete book of bicycling|year=1987|publisher=Putnam Publishing Group|location=New York|isbn=0399132295|page=352|edition=1st|coauthors=Kent Gordis|page=16|quote=Wayne Wong taught me a lot about skiing. One thing he especially recommended as an ideal off-season exercise was cycling. As a result, I started paying attention to my bike for a change.}}</ref> Would early-life, once repositioned, be a section intentionally stripped of all references to his cycling career, even though he started racing while still a child? Or would a possible strategy be to merge into an early life section both all of the information concerning his family (mom, dad, sisters, where he grew up, how he came to cycling, his early results and that he was a victim of sex abuse)? Your insights here are appreciated. Regardless, I'm totally willing to address the reasons for which you oppose the nomination and improve the overall quality of the article. In light of this, your honest feedback and guidance is greatly appreciated. joepa^T 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for Laser Brain, but I like articles to run chronologically. The very first section should be about his early life, family, upbringing, schooling etc. The end section should be either death if that's the case or what they are currently doing or awards earned thus far etc. Everything else in-between should be about his cycling career; how it started, struggles, training, races entered, achievements etc. In conjunction with that, talk about his personal life including marriages, personal tragedies, children etc, all in a chronological order. To get an idea of general layout simply look at other FA's. Once this has been expanded, increase your lead section to four paragraphs. This, I envisage, will take the article well over the current 100,000 bytes so the lede should reflect that. -- Cassianto ^Talk 09:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a most worthy subject of an FA, and different from the usual sports fare that comes to FAC. Unfortunately, I don't think the article meets the criteria at this time, due to apparently uncited content. I saw the following items lacking citation:

1984–1986: "Regardless, LeMond rode as the dutiful lietenant, and his support enabled Hinault to win his fifth Tour."
"LeMond later stated the 1986 Tour was the most difficult and stressful race of his career." A statement of LeMond's opinion like this clearly needs a cite.
1989: Almost all of the section's second paragraph lacks a reference
1990: The whole second paragraph has no reference
1991–1994: "Something was amiss." In general, this is a short, vague sentence that doesn't do anything for the reader. The quote beforehand makes it obvious that he thought something was wrong.
"The watt is the measure cyclists most often look to gauge their performance today." Also, this is missing a word by "to", and "today" is a time-sensitive element that should be avoided if possible.
Business interests: "LeMond also won the 1989 Tour and World's—and his final Tour de France in 1990—on carbon fiber frames, which had begun to feature 'Greg LeMond' branding." Also, should the apostrophe be there in "World's"?
Much of the second paragraph of Anti-doping stance and controversies, which contains multiple quotes.
"LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly decry the sport's descent into the corruption of doping." This is quite POV in addition to being unreferenced.
Where is the quote in note 1 coming from? I don't see a reference attached to it.

I hope you continue working on the article, as LeMond would be a great subject for the main page and certainly deserves the best possible article. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giants, thanks for all of this feedback, especially re. Note 1, where the reference (Wilcockson) must've been inadvertently omitted upon an edit made by one of my co-contributors. With respect to all of the other instances you cite, I'm happy to delve back into the archives and ensure appropriate references. Question: how much time would one spend slagging-off LeMond in the article for it to be considered POV-free? After all, Armstrong is far from his only critic and, especially since announcing his willingness to replace Pat McQuaid as UCI president, he has come in for criticism from journalists such as Ed Hood in the UK. Just to note, I'm intentionally not responding to each point in specifics at this point b/c I haven't had even a moment to make a single subsequent edit. But all of the feedback is great and super-appreciated.joepa^T 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't spend time "slagging off" LeMond at all. What we want to avoid is sounding like we are pushing an opinion on an issue, such as using the phrasing "descent into the corruption of doping." I happen to think that cycling is quite dirty now, but we don't want the article to read like we're presenting a POV on the subject; as Cryptic said below, it's important that we stick to the facts. In this case, the problem is in the writing style and not a lack of critical coverage. Writing something like "LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly decry the drug use of competitors" would be perfectly neutral while getting the important fact across. If you do withdraw the nomination for more work, I recommend opening a peer review, where you can ask for input from the opposers without the immediate pressure of an FAC. There's a short waiting time before a peer review can be opened, which you can use to address the issues that have been raised so far. Keep up your enthusiam and I think a future nom can pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A clear driveby as was the original GAN. It seems that the nominator is more interested in the status rather than the actual quality of the article. It as been resubmitted for a GA review. I did have a suspicion that the GA review was done by a sock puppet, so could be investigated further. Bald Boris 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a driveby? The nominator has over 100 edits to the article. At most you could say he is rushing the article through the process (I'm not certain what the point of the GA process was, if he intended to take it to FAC that very same day), but I don't see much basis for your other accusations. This is not an actionable oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Laser Brain. Joepa, if you have the intention of improving this article further, which I believe you do, you should feel free to ignore BaldBoris's comment. We all have to start somewhere! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a style of writing that is appropriate for memoirs, and there is a style that is appropriate for encyclopedia entries. The writing throughout this article is the former:

"His enormous talent"
"LeMond's spectacular comeback"
"After his storybook 1989-season"
"They put on a showcase of strength"
"In a surprising turnaround"
"he again out-dueled Fignon"
"Something was amiss."
"What he did not say was that the help was contingent upon LeMond demonstrating that he was clearly the better rider." If he didn't say this, why do we know it?

Our aim is not to tell a fascinating and over-embellished story in a sexy narrative voice. It is to provide the reader with a summary of the important facts. The entire article needs to be rewritten with this in mind. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cryptic C62, thank you for your feedback. I believe that I understand what you're conveying about style, and, while I may have added at least one of the phrases to which you object, I think the majority were already in place or added by others not involved in our editing project. Or I simply avoided rewriting everything b/c I didn't want to be accused of trying to dominate the article and impose my own style upon it, even if that style would be more appropriate for wikipedia. Clearly what you're all saying is that, even while the article may have potential, there are improvements that need to be made, and you've provided specific examples that were not elucidated previously. All of this is very, very welcome, because I personally do not have the experience here of previously having edited an article up to the FA-status. But I'm more than willing to invest the additional time on top of 139 edits I've already made, which represent over 13% of the total edits to the article. One question, does additional factual material need adding to the article concerning the subject's sporting career or even their family/early life (see my comment above re. adding less-flattering information to the article) or would you characterize your objection and counsel based on stylistic and organizational deficiencies? Also, since it is clear that the consensus is that there is more work to be done, what is the formal process - will the nomination be failed and terminated, and I'll/we'll have to nominate again, or is it better tabled for a time and then reconsidered after a period for editing was allowed for? joepa^T 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joep01. I think the best strategy would be to request withdrawal of the nomination. The FAC delegates will archive the nomination, and you can bring it back later after you've worked on it (two weeks minimum). Consider contacting those who offered actionable opposition here before you renominate, just to ask if they believe their concerns were addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Joep, I will be archiving this nomination based on the reviewers' comments and my own scan of the text, which also indicates that rewriting in neutral language is called for. A number of people here have offered constructive and specific suggestions that I'm sure you'll take on board. After work is completed (including say a Peer Review, as suggested above) and provided at least two weeks passed since archiving, the article may be renominated for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.