Talk:Greg LeMond

Greg LeMond nominated as Featured Article (FA)

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! joepa^T 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Image licence problem?

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)

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. joepa^T 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{Citation needed|date=}} tag. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can I just remind the nominator to close WP:FAC before a GA review. The two are not allowed to run at the same time. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What is alt text? Can you explain? Better still, could you also make whatever edits you think are missing? Thanks! joepa^T 22:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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! joepa^T 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead citations

I'm not sure if all the citations are needed according to this. WP:LEADCITE BaldBoris 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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...joepa^T 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life - family and individual issues

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...joepa^T 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

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? joepa^T 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

===Naming=== The policy within Wikipedia:Article titles applies to the titles of Wikipedia bibliographies. This project seeks to establish consistency in naming bibliographies within the encyclopedia and recommends the following:

• A bibliography on a topic such as biology should be named Bibliography of biology. Because Bibliography is a recognized type of list in Wikipedia, an explicit use of the word is preferable to titles such as List of important books about biology and Publications on biology. Words like important, influential, landmark, notable and popular in the title are difficult to defend without significant explanation and should be avoided.
  • Topical bibliographies where the topic is a person should be named: Bibliography of works on John Doe. This eliminates confusion with John Doe bibliography which lists works by John Doe (an author bibliography).
  • Topical bibliographies where the topic is a non-person should be named: Bibliography of topic
• A bibliography of an author such as Mark Twain should be named Mark Twain bibliography.
• Author bibliographies that contain other types of published works such as music (discography), or film (filmography) in addition to published literature should be called Works of Author, Works of Rambhadracharya for example.

The topic or author of a bibliography should be notable and have an article in Wikipedia.

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)

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. joepa^T 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article status

Well, it looks like Joe is getting us ready for another attempt to make the Greg LeMond article reach Featured Article status. As I recall from the first effort, the major short coming was inadequate citations. Do we have any info on what all we need to do to get the article ready for submission for Featured Article? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Great question! I've tried to get some other editors interested in doing a formal "peer review" (as recommended by the FA guide), but you're literally the only other person who's expressed any consistent interest in relentlessly improving this article! Gah! joepa^T 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Disc Wheel is joining our two-man paceline. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Joe, here are the critiques that the article generated from the last go round: (I'm going to cut it way back)

• This article seems to be more about LeMond the cyclist and has nothing about LeMond the person.

Expanded

• At two paragraphs, the lede is too short. Increase your lead section to four paragraphs.

Done

• 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.

Done

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."

Supporting citation provided

• "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.

Supporting citation provided

• 1989: Almost all of the section's second paragraph lacks a reference

Fixed

• 1990: The whole second paragraph has no reference

Fixed

• 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.

Removed

• "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.

Explanatory note and supporting citations provided

• 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.

Supporting citations provided

• "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.

Fixed

• Where is the quote in note 1 coming from? I don't see a reference attached to it.

The note in question has been cited. The only note I could not find a cite for was on the meaning of the term "Dutiful Lieutenant"

• Avoid phrases like "LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly descent into the corruption of doping." 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.

Fixed

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. Examples:

• "His enormous talent"

Removed

• "LeMond's spectacular comeback"

Removed

• "After his storybook 1989-season"

Removed

• "They put on a showcase of strength"

Removed

• "In a surprising turnaround"

Reworked

• "he again out-dueled Fignon"

Removed

• "Something was amiss."

Removed

• "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?

Explanatory note provided, with quotes from Hinault and supporting citation

Our aim 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)

Very good. A lot of these we have addressed. I am still conscious that my writing on LeMond is unlikely to be neutral, and I am concerned that we will not have adequately cited the article. Certainly one citation that covers several statements in a paragraph is adequate citation if all statements are supported by the one citation. It would be poor form to just put a citation at the end of every sentence when they all are citing the same article. The support is there just as surely at the end of the paragraph. That said:

• One of us should go through and look for things that need citations and leave a {{citation needed}} tag on it. That will mean looking at the citations provided to be sure we have documented things accurately.

Done Two items I found still need citations: 1) the statement that Greg rode carbon framed bicycles in 1989 and 1990, and 2) the lead statement: "LeMond has not enjoyed the public stature that might be expected of such a figure,.. (How could that be proved? How would that stature be quantified?) ..but he continues to campaign publicly against doping and ineffective leadership by the UCI. (Continues to campaign is time sensitive. Ten years from now will the statement still be true? Twenty years? How would we know?) Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gunbirddriver. The lead statement, "LeMond has not enjoyed the public stature that might be expected of such a figure, is derived from the 2013 Sports Illustrated article by Epstein. In it, he writes:

When Lance Armstrong was stripped of his Tour de France titles, it left Greg LeMond 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, though, in large part because of his contentious relationship with Armstrong.

— David Epstein, http://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/01/18/lance-armstrong-admission-kathy-lemond-reaction

Agreed about the time sensitive issue re. what LeMond is up to now vs. what he was up to when we were really focused on this. Probably applies to some of the way we present his business and philanthropic efforts, too, and the car crash? I briefly corresponded with BaldBoris tonight and he mentioned restarting the FA-status pursuit for this article. I feel like I have some time and energy to put towards this...Cheers!joepa^T 03:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken so long to respond. At this point the correct statement would be something like "Greg LeMond has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity since the doping scandals have come to light", as it appears he is hugely popular in France and has been doing commentary on the Tour the past couple of years. In addition, he has restarted his bicycle manufacturing business, and is seeing some success there. I could track down sources for those assertions. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Any evaluative statement you or I have placed in the text (blazing, scintillating, etc) has to go, but if we are quoting an expert source and indicate that, then that's fine. My last edits on the Jock Boyer episode at the '82 Worlds needs an explanatory note. That whole thing is explained in Richard Moore's book "Slaying the Badger". Greg committed no wrong move there. If Jock wanted the team to ride as a team, he should not have pushed for the team to continue to use the World's as the US national championship race. If the top US finisher decides the US national champion, and everyone knows that going in, then why would any other American rider feel compelled to just give it to Jock? Greg thought they should compete as a team, just as all the European teams did, and let the national champion be decided separately, or not designated if it would not have a race of its own. The US riders were competing for US national champion at the 1982 Worlds by Jock Boyer's choice, so he shouldn't be surprised if Greg made a move for the win.

Explanatory note added, source material cited

• Let's make sure we are using a single format for dates: Month/Day/Year.

All dates are Month/Day/Year

All right then. I will cut the time out and go though it all. In fact, it will be my pleasure. This will be fun!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Love the energy and enthusiasm shown for this article. But why are all the photos so small and the same size? In particular, I'd love to see the b & w from the 1989 TdF TT expanded in size. Normally, I'd just expand it myself, but you might have a reason I don't know about (?). It's an unattractive, monotonous visual layout, as all photos are quite small and jammed over on the rt. margin. The Coors 1986 photo could be enlarged, too, and put on the left; it's hilarious, too, as LeMond is in focus, but Hinault ain't. BTW, the highlighted quote boxes are awesome: wow, love them. thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Jack! The preferred wikipedia format is to use thumbprint sized images through the body of the text. Only the infobox image can be larger. I agree it would appear far more attractive if the images were enlarged, but then again the size of an image relative to the page varies with each computer used, the settings each user has their computer set to, and so forth. If we are going for Featured Article we have to comply with the standard, which is that the images in the body of the text are thumbprints. If someone is interested enough to want to see the image enlarged, wikipedia expects them to click on it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Capiche, Gunbirddriver. Do the thumbnails all have to be on the rt. margin, too? Also, I cropped the b&w 1989 tdF TT photo (updated as "GregLeMond.1989 Tour de France st 21.TT-crop (2).jpg") and would like to replace the original photo with it, if no one has objections. (I took a fair amount off the left side and also cropped the top some.) gracias, Jack B108 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cropped version might be great. Put it up and let's have a look. As to left vs right, no there is no restriction or even a guide of preference on that one, so you can try moving an image over to the left if you think that would improve the look of the piece. Have at it! Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoever the unfocused Slurpee is in the 1986 Coors, it isn't Hinault, but it's still a gr8 photo. Jack B108 (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We think that is Doug Shapiro of the 7 Eleven team, but we have not been able to confirm it yet. If someone could find a list of the team entries and numbers assigned to the riders competing in the 1986 Coors Classic, we could nail it down. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eliminate POV from reference to "ineffective leadership by the UCI" in intro?

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...). joepa^T 18:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. joepa^T 23:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead Image - old-looking GL from 2009 or a nice pic of him as a racer in his heyday? (Oct. 2014)

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 joepa^T 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. joepa^T 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, looks like BaldBoris replaced the infobox pic from 2009 with the Coors Light pic of LeMond from his racing days, which I think is the right direction to go in. Seems only logical that the photo should be reflective of the subject during the time in which they cultivated their great notoriety. Cheers. joepa^T 01:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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. joepa^T 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

Referring to Armstrong and Landis in the Lead

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)

User:Gunbirddriver, User:Joep01, user:BaldBoris et al would you weigh in on this? Thanks. Azx2 16:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

100% shouldn't be in the lead. BaldBoris 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Confused

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)

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 Zwerg Nase mentioned he wanted to get working on this soon(ish). BaldBoris 23:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@SunCrow and BaldBoris: 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)

Britannica article on LeMond

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)

Well, that's pretty embarrassing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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