This article is about the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a three-week stage cycle race through France. The 1989 edition is known as one of the closest fought and more memorable in the history of the event. The article passed its GA review in late October. Apart from alt captions, not much more work has been done to the article since I felt it met the FA criteria as it is. I am very much looking forward to your suggestions and comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Route_of_the_1989_Tour_de_France.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Have added a source for the route on the commons page of the image. Please check if this suffices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of minor notes on source formatting, though I have not done a source review:
Why put Chauner & Halstead in the footnotes and not in the sources?
From my time at university, I have taken the habit of only listing sources in the bibliography that I reference more than once. That is why I have Moore's biography of Millar and the Chauner & Halstead book only as a footnote. I am unsure if there is an official Wikipedia policy on this, but I find that a good solution for not bloating up the bibliography with books that are not essential for the article topic as a whole. Feel free to disagree though, I am open for debate! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, as far as I know, the Historical Guide is given out every year at the Tour and published online by L'Equipe. Since it is not sold, there does not appear to be an ISBN. Will tackle the comments below as soon as I can. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-source comments follow. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.
I'd suggest making it "aerodynamic handlebars" rather than just "aerobars" in the lead; it's not a term I've ever seen and there's no link, so I had to scan the rest of the article to figure it out.
Reworded.
Did LeMond use the aerobars in the prologue or just in the later three time trials?
Clarified.
I see from a note that Fignon was disqualified from another race for using this equipment. Is there enough of a controversy over the aerobars for it to be mentioned in the lead?
@Mike Christie: I would say the lead is quite long already, and the controversy around their usage was mainly on how much benefit they actually gave LeMond rather than wether or not he was allowed to use them. I have however amended the footnote to reflect the history of the regulations concerning this (as far as I could find). Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not expected that LeMond would be able to make up this deficit on the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage. However, he rode the distance at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time in the stage was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title. The final margin of victory was only eight seconds. I think there's some repetition and wordiness here that could be eliminated. How about "LeMond was not expected to be able to make up this deficit, but he completed the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title by a margin of only eight seconds."
Done.
Twenty-two teams of nine cyclists would be 198 riders, but apparently only 189 entered the race -- is that a typo?
Fixed.
strongest favourite: would just "favourite" work? Or "a strong favourite"?
Done. Also tweaked the wording for Fignon.
In the lead you mention the prologue and "the other three time trials"; in the body you say "In total there were five time trials including the prologue". I assume this is because one is a team time trial, but I think this should be clarified in one place or the other -- e.g. "the other three individual time trials" in the lead would do it.
Done.
since they only allowed three support points for the rider on the bike: might be worth citing the relevant regulation in a footnote. Are these handlebars allowed nowadays? Have the rules changed since then?
I would at least wikilink "bidon", if there's a suitable target, but it might be better to substitute a word that will be understood by non-aficionados. Similarly for "feed zone". Is there a glossary article for cycling terms? Or perhaps you could put in a couple of footnotes?
Done.
while Erik Breukink retired: since you're not mentioning all retirements, you might make it clearer why this one is worth mentioning -- perhaps "while Erik Breukink, one of the pre-race favourites, retired"?
Done.
and the stage was earmarked as being the decisive part of the race overall: "earmarked" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Not sure what the source will support, but perhaps "expected" would be better. How about "Stage 17, which finished at Alpe d'Huez, one of the most famous climbs in cycling, was expected to be the decisive point of the race"? I'm not crazy about the slightly journalese "led the peloton to", and this wording avoids multiple uses of the word "stage".
Done.
At the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead. Out of sequence, surely, since it appears Fignon was after LeMond in the time trial, not before? Or at least it should be rephrased not to imply that LeMond was known to be ahead of Fignon by 21 seconds at that point.
Done.
He ended with a time of 27:55 minutes, the fastest time trial he had ever ridden: 27:55 is a time, not a speed; shouldn't we give his speed if we're going to say "fastest"? Or are all time trials exactly the same length?
I have calculated his average speed and added it. However, I calculated it myself, it does not come from a source. Don't know if that constitutes OR?
The organisation had categorized some climbs: what does "the organization" refer to?
I have now given the name of the Tour organisation in the first section.
with more points available for the higher-categorized climbs: if I recall correctly, hors catégorie is the hardest, and fourth-category is the easiest, so I would say "more difficult" to avoid a non-aficionado assuming that "fourth" was the hardest because it's a higher number.
Clarified.
You cover the intermediate sprints classification but there's no explanation of how it worked, and no narrative of it during the race. I don't know anything about it myself so I'm not sure what it is or what you should add, but it seems odd that there's no coverage at all.
Nobody really cared about the classification, which is why it was abandoned the year after. That's why there's basically no sources for it. I have expanded upon all of the classification as far as I could.
Any reason not to give the leadership by stage of all the classifications? You only give three; I'm not saying you need to -- perhaps there's a consensus that these are the important three -- but I thought I'd ask.
@Mike Christie: I removed the young rider classification because no jersey was worn, so listing it would have been misleading. I removed the team classification because it had gaps in it and I could not find a source for that information. I am hoping that the stat book that EdgeNavidad mentioned below will give me that information so that I can verify all of that. We'll see, the book should arrive today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, no success here, although the book does provide the infos which EdgeNavidad listed below, which I am in the process of including.
Generally this looks pretty clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think I have tackled everything for now, please see if anything still needs to be done from your point of view. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything looks good with one exception: the point about "LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead" is that it sounds to the reader as if anyone watching the race would have known this -- that at the halfway mark, it was clear that LeMond had made up 21 seconds. That's not true, though; it wouldn't be known until Fignon reached the half-way mark later. Presumably what happened was everyone could see it was a very fast time trial, but it was Fignon's ride that was the truly exciting one, because that was when the time comparisons could be made. That doesn't come through in this description.
@Mike Christie: Well, the way I have phrased it now, it clearly says "when he [Fignon] reached the half-distance time check"; at which point it was clear what the time difference was. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It currently says When he reached the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of his lead. The previous sentences have mentioned both Fignon and LeMond, so I read this as "When LeMond reached". If you make this "When Fignon reached", that would resolve this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the calculation question: no, that's not OR; it's a straightforward calculation so anyone can verify it and it doesn't need a separate source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications.
For reference: I used this book and searched for 1989. I found a few things that are currently wrong in the article, and several details that are currently not in the wikipedia article while I feel they should/might be mentioned:
The Tour organisation did not "choose to automatically invite the eighteen best-ranked teams in the FICP Road World Rankings", but they were convinced/forced by the FICP. The Tour wanted to re-use the system that they used in 1988, but the FICP wanted them to use the FICP ranking. In return, the Tour was allowed to be 23 days long, in stead of the 21 days that the FICP originally requested. (Not very detailed in that book, but I found another source.)
Clarified, thank you very much for the sources!
There were no time bonuses at all. Not for stage winners, nor for intermediate sprints. Something that I feel should be mentioned somewhere.
According to van den Akker, intermediate sprints did give time bonuses, which I have included. I also included that no time bonuses were given at stage finishes.
Indeed, intermediate sprints gave time bonuses in the first half, I missed that. :)
LeMond's ADR team was seventeenth in the team classification. In no other year (as of 2018) did the team of the Tour winner finish lower in the team classification. (I don't know if this is important enough to include.)
Included.
For the points classification, time trials and mountain stages gave 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point. Flat stages gave 35, 30, 26, 24, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point.
Included.
After the first stage, Da Silva lead the points classification, not Lilholt. They were tied in points, but Da Silva had won more stages, which was the first tie-breaker. Still, Da Silva would not wear the green jersey in the next stage because Da Silva wore yellow. Lilholt would wear red, because he led the intermediate sprints classification, so Kelly, third in the points classification, would wear green. Da Silva also lead after the second stage.
Included.
For the mountains classification, the points were:
In the leadership table, the mountains classification leader for first three stages are wrong: currently it says N/A, Le Clerc & Le Clerc, but it should be Gianetti, Da Silva & Da Silva.
For the young rider classification, Alberto-Luis Camargo was eligible, but his team forgot to enter him. Had he been entered, he would have won, but now Fabrice Philipot became the winner.
Included.
For the young rider classification, the white jersey was not used, but the leader was still recognizable, because he had the logo of the European Union on his shoulder.
Included.
For the intermediate sprints classification, in the first half of the Tour intermediate sprints gave 6, 4 and 2 points, and in the second half 15, 10 and 5.
Included.
For the combination classification, points were given based on the ranks in other classification (general, points, mountains and intermediate sprints): the leader got 25 points, the second 24 points, and so on until 1 point for 25th place.
Included.
The "Souvenir Jacques Anquetil" was used: a prize was given to the rider who wore the yellow jersey on the most stages.
Included.
The combativity award was in 1989 a classification based on votes given in each stage.
I lack the time to properly include this in the article, and I am afraid to break the prose. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, thank you for bringing that source to my attention, I have been looking for these sorts of information actually. Will see that I include everything! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All seems to be included correctly! No objections from me for making this a featured article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One afterthought: the article currently states that the Souvenir Henri Desgrange was won by Franco Vona. This is supported by a source. However, the articles on the Souvenir Henri Desgrange says the winner was Gert-Jan Theunisse, without source. When I looked for additional sources, I found reports that the Souvenir Desgrange was won by neither of them, but by Laurent Biondi. See newspaper articles from that time ([2], [3]), and Memoire du Cyclisme says that L'Equipe of 20 July 1989 reported this. ([4]). I think the newspaper articles from 1989 are more reliable than a report written in 2009, so I think this article (and the Souvenir Henri Desgrange) article should show Biondi as winner. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: Thank you for catching this! I was also confused by the Souvenir article, but put it down simply as a mistake (which it probably is). I will take a closer look at this tomorrow and then make the changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: I've changed it and added the new source. There seems to be some confusion since the prize is not given out at the summit, but at the monument. Have corrected that as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The race was won by Greg LeMond (AD Renting–W-Cup–Bottecchia). There is no explanation of what the part in brackets means. Maybe on this first usage, write it out ("Greg LeMond of the AD Renting... team" and subsequently use brackets? Or at least put "team" in the brackets.
Done.
In the time trial stages, Fignon only managed to match LeMond in the prologue... Would Fignon have been expected to beat LeMond? This might be better cut to "... Fignon matched LeMond in the prologue..."
Done.
In the third paragraph, you say "..by fifty seconds..", "..was fifty-eight seconds..", "..only eight seconds.", but then "..more than 53 seconds..". Change this last one for consistency.
It is correct how it is written. The biggest margin was 53 seconds. LeMond made up 58 seconds on the final day, coming from 50 seconds back to 8 seconds up on Fignon.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. You write "fifty", "fight-eight" and "eight" out as words, but wrote "53" as a number. Just switch "53" to "fifty-three". Harriastalk 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see, fixed!
by French Fabrice Philipot I'm not aware that "French" can be used like this, shouldn't it be "Frenchman"?
Removed this, his nationality is trivial to the information conveyed here.
Teams
39 of the 198 cyclists... Per MOS:NUM, avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Done.
Pre-race favourites
Future five-time winner Miguel Induráin was riding in support of Delgado. This just seems like trivia to me. Does it have any significant bearing on the article at this stage?
Removed.
...during four years of little results after 1984. I'm not sure about "little results", would "poor results" be accurate?
Have changed this to "with few victories".
...the three-week Grand Tour in Italy... Why is "Grand Tour" in italics? The article (Grand Tour (cycling) doesn't use italics?
Done.
Bjarne Riis, aged 25, rode his first Tour de France, supporting his teammate Fignon.[16] Riis would go on to win the 1996 Tour de France, the year after the last of Induráin's wins. As with Induráin above, this seems out of place.
Removed.
...made it seem that Roche was finding his form again. According to who? Without attribution, this looks like editorialising.
According to Tassell, which is the source given. I paraphrased here, since there are already quite a few direct quotes in the article.
Maybe change it to something like "...top-ten placing at the Giro d'Italia led Tassell to suggest that Roche was finding his form again." Harriastalk 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harrias: Hmm, not sure about that, since Tassell writes about it after the fact, so this would be misleading. I will have another look into the book tonight and see how to best phrase it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...ADS's financial troubles meant that, LeMond had not been paid... No need for that comma.
Done.
Route and stages
Link Wasquehal, Dinard and Col du Galibier in the prose.
Done.
Race overview
The opening prologue... I understand why it's written like this, but "opening" and "prologue" are synonyms, so I don't think it's necessary.
Done.
...and, surprisingly, LeMond... Surprising according to who, otherwise it is editorialising.
Removed.
The dominant story of the day however was defending champion Delgado. Remove "however".
Removed.
...but his efforts were brought back. This needs explaining in some way. I assume it means he was caught back up by the peloton?
Reworded.
...Delgado fell further back, as he struggled to keep up and... No need for that comma, it might be better placed after "keep up".
Removed the comma. I am always confused with English comma rules (are there any?). Would the comma after "keep up" count as an Oxford comma? I usually do those, but aren't they just in "x, y, and z" situations?
...taking the lead in the tour by... Should "tour" be capitalised here? It's been capitalised most other times?
Done.
LeMond's surprising victory... Again, according to who?
Removed. It was surprising, but I am unsure now if Tassell specifically said so here.
Completed as far as the start of the Pyrenees section, but now my laptop battery is running low, and I have no charging point here. Harriastalk 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harrias: Thank you for your comments! I have adressed everything above, please feel free to go through it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harrias: Do you think you can find the time to stroll through the rest of the article in the coming days? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pyrenees
..putting any work in to counter attacks.. It should be "into" not "in to".
..where Delgado was provoked by an over-enthusiastic spectator and threw a bidon at him. He then attacked but.. Given the first sentence effectively describes Delgado literally attacking a spectator, can we use a different word to "attacked" in the second sentence, for clarity.
..as did his only remaining teammate, José-Hipolito Roncancio, meaning that the Kelme squad was entirely out of the race. Saying both "his only remaining teammate" and "the Kelme squad was entirely out of the race" seems a little tautologous; can it be tightened a little to remove the repetition?
Changed to "..the only remaining Kelme riders abandoned, pre-race favourite Fabio Parra and José-Hipolito Roncancio." BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the fact that it was the Bastille Day bicentenary at all relevant to the race or this article? It is included in the title, and clarified in the prose, but it doesn't seem to have had any impact on the race at all? To me, a mention that Stage 13 was on Bastille Day, a national holiday in France would be the most information needed, the rest just seems like padding.
Out of interest, were there multiple people with the surnames Millar and Mottet, as you often refer to these two by their full names, even after they have been mentioned quite a few times in the article previously, but you don't seem to do it much, if at all, with others. If there isn't a reason for that disambiguation, it'd be worth checking throughout for this. (Particularly relevant for Millar, as the less times we can "fully" deadname her, the better.)
For each section I put the full name at the first instance and removed surnames in the following mentions. I recently asked about this here, but didn't get a clear answer.BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
..sight of the World Championships one month later.. Site, not sight.
..he became the highest-paid cyclist in the history of the sport.. There's a few statements like this that need clarifying: the highest-paid cyclist in the history of the sport ever, or until that point?
I added a reference for this and clarified two others. Were there more? BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classification leadership and minor prizes
..were given 6, 4, and 2 bonus seconds respectively.. Given the riders wanted the lowest time, am I to assume that these time bonuses were subtracted from their times?
Added (time subtracted) after "time bonuses". BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
..45 for the winner down to one point.. Per MOS:NUM these comparable number should be presented in the same form, so "45" and "1" (or vice versa). Similar in the subsequent sentence.
@Harrias: I've stepped in and sorted the remaining comments out due to the urgency and Zwerg not replying today. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harrias: Thank you for your comments, which were of great help! I'll take a look at your FAC, but just a heads up: I have no idea about cricket, since I am not British or living in any other Commonwealth nation... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that I reviewed this article for GA status.
The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a race of 21 stages and a prologue, over 3,285 km (2,041 mi). ===>>> The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours. The race consisted of 21 stages and a prologue over 3,285 km (2,041 mi). (It's worth mentioning what the Tour de France is.)
Have added this and some more information about the importance of the Tour, including a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about just "one of cycling's Grand Tours and generally considered the most famous bike race in the world." I think the claim that it's the biggest sporting event is a bit too much for the lead, especially given that it's just a specific edition of the Tour, and not the general Tour de France article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Tour organisers relented, but in turn were allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP. ===>>> The Tour organisers had initially relented, but gave in to the demand in return for being allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP.
I am unsure why you propose this change. Writing it like that would make it sound like the two things happened one after another and not simultaneously.
Ah, I thought it was one after the other. I feel like the "but" doesn't belong. How about: "The Tour organisers relented in exchange for being allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Split that paragraph into two after the above sentence.
Done.
Next to Delgado, good chances of overall victory were also given to Laurent Fignon ===>>> Next to Delgado, Laurent Fignon was also given a good chance for overall victory.
Done.
Kelly had never been a strong contender for the general classification, despite an overall victory at the 1988 Vuelta a España: next to targeting a high place in the overall rankings, Kelly hoped to secure a record-breaking fourth win in the points classification. ===>>> Kelly had never been a strong contender for the general classification, despite an overall victory at the 1988 Vuelta a España. Aside from targeting a high place in the overall rankings, Kelly hoped to secure a record-breaking fourth win in the points classification. (two sentences)
Done.
In the race overview, the stage numbers should all be spelled out (e.g. "five", "six", etc.) or all of them should be numbered, rather than some having numbers and others having words.
All numerals now.
Sean Kelly meanwhile lost more than five minutes to LeMond, having to throw up after about 20 km (12 mi) of the stage. ===>>> Sean Kelly meanwhile lost more than five minutes to LeMond after having to throw up after about 20 km (12 mi) of the stage.
Done.
He passed away in 2010 following a short battle with cancer.[82] <<<=== I would leave this out, as I don't think he died because of this race.
Removed.
In all, during the race the leader changed seven times. ===>>> During the race, the leader changed seven times.
Done.
The organisation had categorized some climbs as either hors catégorie, first, second, third, or fourth-category, with the lower-numbered categories representing harder climbs. ===>>> The organisation had categorized some climbs as either hors catégorie (beyond categorisation), first, second, third, or fourth-category, with the lower-numbered categories representing harder climbs.
Done, although with BE spelling.
In the event, the classification was won by Fabrice Philipot (Toshiba), who had placed 24th overall. ===>>> Instead, the classification was won by Fabrice Philipot (Toshiba), who had placed 24th overall.
Will support after these minor comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Thank you for your comments! Have worked most of them in, one question is still open, see above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been open over seven weeks and probably should've been archived but perhaps we're closer to promotion than it looks on first glance. I think we can take EdgeNavidad comments as supporting promotion despite it not being explicitly stated, and if Harrias can finish up then we might get over the line. Mike Christie do you think you could take on a source review for reliability as well as formatting? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ian Rose: That would be great! I would hate to have to do a second round with this article... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ian, could we list it for the source review at the usual place, and then I'll get to it if I find time this weekend? I've been busier than usual IRL recently and have been slow to meet commitments already made, so I'd rather not promise anything. With luck someone else will come along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Laser brain: I've taken care of them all as I'm sure you want this archived. BaldBoris 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Laser brain and BaldBoris: Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation last week which prevented me from tackling the comments. If any more work needs to be done, I'll do it today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Laser brain: I think it should probably be good to go? What do you think? Maybe we still need an expressive support from Harrias? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verification: A couple of points arise from a sample spotchecks exercise:
Ref 1: "The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours and generally considered the most famous bike race in the world." The source article is about the 2018 Tour: "It's the 103rd edition of the race". Isn't there a more relevant source that could be cited?
Ref 10: "Before the 1989 Tour began, Pedro Delgado (Reynolds), the defending champion, was considered a strong favourite to win the race. He had taken the title the previous year in convincing fashion, with a lead of over seven minutes. Prior to the Tour, Delgado had also won the 1989 Vuelta a España, and was therefore considered to be in good form." Apart from mentioning Delgado as one of several favourites, the source does not support the information cited to it.
@Brianboulton: Sorry to butt in, I just want to help out. I've fixed "missing page ref" and replaced the "All about year 2018". I had originally added the refs that you state are missing the retrieval dates. As I've said at the recently passed 1962 Tour FAC, "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." Per Template:Cite news#URL. The source text in old newspapers or books cannot be changed, so a retrieval date is of no benefit to reader. BaldBoris 22:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the archived links carry retrieval dates, and it is necessary to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the Dutch newspaper links at either Delpher or KrantenbanZeeland.nl cannot be archived. Including a retrieval date for these just for consistency doesn't make sense to me. BaldBoris 23:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unrelated point: Why, in the lead, is Fignon described as "former two-time Tour winner"? Surely he remains a two-time winner? Perhaps "previous" would be a better word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]