Talk:The Boat Race 2012/GA1

The following is an archived discussion of the review of a good article nomination. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass! Great job!--Dom497 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The 158th Boat Race took place on 7 April 2012 and was won by Cambridge" - I think it would be better to put "was won by the University of Cambridge" as you are just introducing the topic and it isn't clear what Cambridge is. I know that if someone reads the main article first, they would understand, but for people who just stumbled upon this page, that wouldn't be the case.
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the lead needs to be expanded a bit more to cover all the sections in the article.
Tried a bit, can you suggest anything else you'd like to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite having the heavier crew, Oxford were pre-race favourites having had a successful The race was halted..." - Incomplete sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got distracted, pressed save. Mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The trials crews..." - Call me out on this one if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it be "trial" without the 's'.
Well that's a curious one. They are crews who take place in trials. It seems natural to me, but I can see that it may not be for the reader, so I'll remove the "s" for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all the boatrace.org refs, the publisher is actually: Boat Race Company Ltd. Publishing dates are also needed.
Done, a little bit disappointed in myself that I didn't have those publication dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The official crews were announced and the weigh-in held on 5 March 2012..." - Doesn't flow well when I read it. Maybe something like, "The official crews were announced and weighed-in on 5 March..."?
Should be "The official crews were announced at the weigh-in, held ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Blue crew, downplayed the disparity: "It’s a big difference but it’s a very long race and you have to have the power to carry that weight down the course"." - "the disparity, "It’s..." (change to comma)
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one is kinda optional as this is just me being picky: "The women's race, the 66th meeting of Cambridge University Women's Boat Club and Oxford University Women's Boat Club..." - Maybe take out "The women's race...". Not really needed given that the sub-section title says just that.
I'm not sure, the section is about both the women's and reserve's race, so I'll leave it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think of it, why is there no background info about the women?--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Women's Boat Race has its own article, albeit crap. The race is noted here, just as it's noted in broadcasts covering the Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is ref 11 reliable? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the person who wrote the article is credible.
It is published by the Women's Boat Club so I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the report, particularly as it's being used in a non-controversial manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a reverse race?
I don't know, why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have no idea what it is and if I don't know it, a reader doesn't have context of the topic probably wouldn't either. Even if there is an article that you can just link to.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where it says "reverse race"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-section is named "Women's and reverses" and, "The reserve race, between Oxford's Isis and Cambridge's..."--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing that, I'm seeing "Women's and reserves". I don't know what more I can do if I can't see the word "reverses", perhaps you could adjust it if you can find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph under 'Women's and reserves' sub-section. "The reserve race, between Oxford's Isis and Cambridge's Goldie, was held thirty minutes before the main race, at 1.45pm.[12]"--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean "reserve"? You've continually mentioned "reverse" and it's totally confused me. If you want a link to Reserve team then fine, otherwise I'm still not getting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, biggest fail of my life...--Dom497 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...was held thirty minutes before the main race, at 1.45pm on 7 April 2012" - Seems kinda excessive (aka, not needed).
I took the date out but left the time to keep context. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the previous record? Just say something like, "a record time of 16 minutes 41 seconds, five lengths ahead of Cambridge (____ seconds faster than the previous record), five..."
I think I get it, added something but not repeated "record" so quickly... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...commenced at 2:15pm, with conditions overcast and drizzly, and a light wind..." - Again, seems a bit excessive. And "drizzly" isn't the most neutral term.
I disagree I'm afraid, it's important for boat race articles to have some idea of the conditions of the race, it adds context to the events and to the times. (FWIW I replaced drizzly with "light rain"). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'They almost took his head off,' said Sergeant Chris Tranter of the Metropolitan Police" - This defiantly can be removed.
Why? It's a clear description of how close the crews came to killing Oldfield. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and narrowly avoided being struck" - IMO, this gets the same message as the quote across to the reader.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that'd be OR, I'm quoting the gentleman who gave a report stating how closely the idiot was to being decapitated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the quote is in the reference so as long as you keep the reference, it is not OR.--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a shame to lose some nice descriptive text, but as you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was thinking about it today and I was kinda comparing this article to the ones I write. In my roller coaster articles I include quotes in the "Reception" section. In this articles it seems fit to assume that the "Reaction" section is the equivalent of the "Reception". With that, I've added the quote back. Sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of all these quotes that don't seem to add any value to the article....quote from Garrett can go, quote from Nelson can go, quote from Trapmore can go.
Again, this is all for context and reaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I'm fine with the quotes in the Oldfield section! Just that I think the "he said" should be removed as it's not needed, "Oldfield tweeted the day after the race, he said".
Yes, that was odd, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 20 needs author.
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed and insightful comments. I've implemented most of the changes you suggest, some I disagree with so have left as is. If they're deal breakers for you then I guess you can go ahead and fail the nomination. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Left some replies to your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thanks, I've responded accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Two more replies.--Dom497 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thanks, once again I've responded/adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Two more! :P --Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: have responded to the one that still appeared to need action. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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