Jump to content

Talk:The Boat Races 2016/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be glad to review this. Relentlessly (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is, of course, very good already, and I only have minor tweaks to suggest.

  • "all four senior races, the men's, women's, men's reserves' and women's reserves', were held on the same day" – the punctuation here makes it read as if it was "all four senior races and the men's, women's, men's reserves' and women's reserves'". Obviously logic shows otherwise, but perhaps brackets or endashes would accomplish the parenthesis more clearly.
    Agreed, en-dashed.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the fourth year, the men's race was to be sponsored by BNY Mellon while the women's race sees BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors." Two things: first, "sees", as above. Second, the tenses are a little confusing.
    I have tweaked this.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sean Bowden returned as Chief Coach" – had he gone somewhere? If not, "return" is a little ambiguous.
    Well, it's a turn of phrase I suppose. Since the coaches go off and do different things each year, and then return for the prelude to the BR etc, that's what I meant. Anyway, have tweaked.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dark Blue crew contained a single rower with Boat Race experience in Jamie Cook, a member of the victorious 2015 crew" Is this to say that Cambridge had no rowers with Boat Race experience? If so, perhaps say "The only rower on either side with Boat Race experience was Oxford's Jamie Cook, a member of the victorious 2015 crew."
    No, that's an omission, to do.  Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now fixed, silly mistake on my behalf.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cambridge made the better start and held a slight lead but both crews passed the Mile Post level, before OUWBC made a push to hold a half-length lead after five minutes" This doesn't quite make sense. I think you mean "Cambridge made the better start and held a slight lead, but after passing the Mile Post level, OUWBC made a push to hold a half-length lead after five minutes".
    I'll take a closer look.  Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased per your suggestion, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of sourcing to the Boat Race Company, which is slightly questionable as an independent source, but I don't think there's anything sufficiently controversial for it to matter.

One other point, which is a question rather than an objection, is to ask why Isis, Blondie, etc. don't need italicisation as boats normally do...

  • Good point. There's probably no good reason, I'll have a look around to see if anyone else does that and take further action as required.  Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tempting to say yes, they should all be in italics. That change will affect a few dozen articles so I'll need to be 100% before doing so, although I believe you're probably right. Can I give you my assurance that once I'm done, I'll adjust every single article accordingly? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to do here. In the meantime, on hold. Relentlessly (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Relentlessly. I have made a start and will ping you again when I think I'm ready for a re-review. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relentlessly, I'm done for most of it, the italic names remains a to do, but I'd like to be 100% as I said above. Let me know if there's anything more I can do? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks good to me. Regarding the italicisation, the article is supposed to be "good", not "perfect"! I'm happy to  Pass this. Relentlessly (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]