This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
There are a few concerns I have about elements of prose:
* "Cambridge were the heavier of the crews and consisted of an all-British crew, while Oxford's boat ..."
Clumsy phrasing. Perhaps "Cambridge's crew, the heavier of the two, was entirely British, while Oxford's boat ..."
"It was the last time the race would be conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, along a 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) stretch of the River Thames referred to as the Straight Course, used for the Henley Royal Regatta since 1924."
I think this needs fewer subclauses, perhaps breaking up into two sentences. It would also be good to know when the course was first used.
"Oxford saw three members of the 2013 race return to the crew"
"Saw" is an odd choice of word here. Why not "Three members of Oxford's 2013 crew returned to race in 2014"?
"Cambridge made a series of pushes, and while both crews were warned by the umpire to avoid a collision, Oxford continued to extend their lead to win by four lengths in a time of 5 minutes 50 seconds."
You have three separate things in one sentence here, unless I've misunderstood it. Does the umpire's warning relate to either Cambridge's series of pushes or Oxford's continuing to extend their lead? This needs breaking up into separate ideas, I think. The source is a bit confusing, I'll admit.
"It was the largest winning margin since the 2010 race, six seconds slower than the record time set by Oxford in the 2006 race."
This is a slightly clumsy comma splice, since the "six seconds slower" actually refers to the time mentioned in the previous sentence. I suggest you rephrase the two sentences entirely:
"Cambridge made a series of pushes; both crews were warned by the umpire to avoid a collision. Oxford continued to extend their lead to win by four lengths, the largest winning margin since the 2010 race. Their time was 5 minutes 50 seconds, six seconds slower than the record time set by Oxford in the 2006 race."
* "The race, between crews representing Oxford University Women's Boat Club and Cambridge University Women's Boat Club, was umpired by Judith Packer."
This is odd phrasing. The crews ought to be the focus of the sentence. Perhaps "The race was contested by crews representing Oxford University Women's Boat Club and Cambridge University Women's Boat Club." And unless Judith Packer's involvement is particularly notable, I don't think it need go in the lead.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
My only slight doubt was about The Cambridge Student as a reliable source, but I think it's probably OK.
* I didn't understand the first paragraph of "Crews". From reading the sources, it seems that there was a trial event held on a different course in December, but it's not clear in what way this was significant or how it relates to the rest of the section.
For those less familiar with rowing, it would be good to find some way of explaining the format of the boat, or at least linking Eight (rowing).
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Apologies, The Rambling Man, if the review is hard to follow. I'm just using the templates suggested here; I'll use a different approach in future. (Any recommendations welcome.)
I've struck almost all the points in the table above. A couple of things remain:
I'm not going to debate the point about the umpire; it's not what I'd include and I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not bothered one way or the other. I do, however, think it's odd that the sentence structure focuses on the umpire not on the crews.
I'm British and perfectly comfortable with "saw" in many contexts. But I think your use is a bit unusual (especially as you suggest they were members of "the race" rather than "the crew"). To my mind, the normal use would be "The race saw the return of several of Oxford's 2013 crew." A more direct phrasing would be better, IMO.
I've looked again at the first paragraph of "Crews" and I think I understand it now. I'm afraid I hadn't clocked that "the Tideway" referred to part of the Championship Course. I still think this needs more context for those who aren't closely familiar with the Boat Race (which isn't me particularly, by the way: I studied at one of the universities concerned!). Just a few words, like "As part of the build-up to the race, the two universities sent trial boats to race on 19 December 2013. For the first time in the history of the competition, this took place on the Tideway on part of the Championship Course."
The first two concerns in particular are fairly pedantic; I'm not going go to the wall over any of them, so by all means disagree if you wish. But I do think they'd improve the article, which is surely what GA is about! Relentlessly (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. My main aim with this article, without being patronising to anyone, is to help highlight the women's side of this contest, and I really appreciate your detailed review. I certainly don't want an easy pass at GA, let me know if there's anything else I should address. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
