Talk:The Boat Race 1894/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I will begin a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• The lede should be a comprehensive summary of all the article's section, so I suggest adding "Oxford went into the race as reigning champions" or some variation thereof to the lede to better incorporate the "Background" section. Perhaps also mention that Oxford "held the overall lead, with 27 victories to Cambridge's 22" prior to this boat race.

  Have added some. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The "Crews" section needs to be represented in the lede in order for it to be truly be a comprehensive summary. I'll leave it up to which makes most since to be included, whether it be the average weights or how many participants had been involved with previous boat races.

  Have added some. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• It should be added to the lead that the race was their largest margin of victory since the 1883 race.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

• The content for Douglas McLean in the second paragraph of the "Background" section should be sourced. It looks like it comes from the Burnell source, but this should be noted at the end of that sentence. (Especially since another citation is in the center of the sentence). Also, there is a typo with the Burnell citation in this paragraph.

  Done, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The image is free and good to go.

  Kewl. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Crews

• The table is properly formatted and internally-cited, and is fabulous per usual.

  Hurrah. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Race

• The umpire was accompanied by the Duke of York, which seems like an uncommon event at a Boat Race. Have royals been participants of some sort in any other boat race? If so this would be an ideal place to mention something like so: "the first/second/etc. time since XXX, that a member of the British Royal Family had participated in the race." If this is the only time a royal family member participated somehow, you can disregard this suggestion.

  It's relatively uncommon but I can't find any clear source saying which time this was or how many times subsequently it has happened. It certainly became rarer as reported in the 1960 race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The time of the race's start should be modified with the usage of a colon per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.

  Yuck done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first paragraph requires an internal citation as it is the end of a paragraph.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The map of the course is free and, therefore, good to go.

  Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have completed my review of your article. Your internal citations of source that I have access to check out. As always, you've wonderfully-written another great article documenting The Boat Race event. Once you've made your edits, I feel this article will be ready for passage to Good Article status. -- Caponer (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm done, thanks once again for your reviews and your support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

The Rambling Man, thank you for your timely responses to my above mentioned comments and suggestions to your article. Upon re-review of your article, I find that you've satisfactorily incorporated my suggested edits and your article more than meets the criteria for Good Article status. I appreciate your patience and participation throughout this process. Another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)