Talk:The Boat Race 1836/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 16:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like these old ones. I would feel a bit guilty about taking from so far down the list, but everyone else seems to be doing it!! Harrias ^talk 16:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick initial question: do you have Wikipedia:BNA access? I've had a quick look through, and there's some useful, albeit not earth-shattering information on there that could be added. Harrias ^talk 16:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used to but it lapsed. Is there any chance you could get the useful stuff out to me? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turns out I found a link on my browser which handily remembered my login details. I've tried to find some useful stuff there, but it's not immediately clear to me. About 18 hits for "boat race" + Cambridge, most of them with mangled text.... Can you see anything better? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This report seemed to add a bit? (That it was raining at least!!) Another article (that I can't find at the moment) went into a bit of detail about Cambridge wanting 5.5 miles, while Oxford only 1.5. Harrias ^talk 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the first one I ignored because it comes up with a title of "Si'Ortinq." on my browser and I don't speak Klingon.... ! I'll take a look at that! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your comments were from that same source. I've added both to the article. Did you find anything else useful there? (I find that website a real pain, but it's just me, if there's anything cool, please let me know...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you, the site can be a pain in the arse to sort through, but it can give valuable results. This article mentions that Oxford were the bookies favourites, and mentions a little about the boats, (and then something about a Roman town being found in Exeter – like I said, a pain...) That seems to be about it of use by the looks of it, and the review certainly isn't contingent on you using that information! Harrias ^talk 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll see what I can do with that, and then let me know how you go with the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Ok, added that detail... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

"It was the first of the University Boat Races to be held on the River Thames.." As far as I can tell, this isn't true. Our article on the first race says that "The course for the race was a 2.25-mile (3.62 km) stretch of the River Thames.." Perhaps the intention was the say that it was the first race in London?
Yes, that's silly of me. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, you use "a five-and-three-quarter-mile stretch", while in the Background section, "the 5.75-mile (9.3 km) stretch". I think it would be better to remain consistent, though I don't mind much either way.
I think in the lead, I'd prefer it in prose (and without the conversion, because "nine point three kilometres" would read terribly) and in the body I think the conversion is important for our non-Imperial unit users.... so if you're okay with it, I'll leave it as is. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have more in the race description, but the information is obviously limited, and although I've found bits and pieces around that could be added, it would only really be padding to make the section longer, rather than particularly useful information.
Tell me about it. I've added those nuggets you suggested but it really wasn't much more than a procession. Something which is sometimes unavoidable in this series of race articles sadly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, from what I can see from the sources, both the umpires appear to be representatives of Oxford? Lord Loftus of Balliol and Mr Hickson/Hiceson of Christ Church. Odd. (No work needed particularly, just an aside.)
That is interesting, which source gave you that information? It would seem, on the face of it, to be at least including that, even if just as fact, rather than a comment on how odd and lopsided the umpiring team were..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source was The Sportsman. There are a few other bits and bobs, but again, I don't know whether they are really useful, or would just be unnecessary padding. Harrias ^talk 19:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that factoid, it's interesting (although many decades before the rules changed) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #7 doesn't work, it comes up with a 404 error.
Well since it referenced a bogus "fact", I've happily removed it and replaced it with a ref which substantiates the corrected claim! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about the use of the map, as it is a bit misleading. At the time of the race, only the Vauxhall and Battersea Bridges were in place. That said, the course of the river was clearly the same, and it gives the reader context still. I'd prefer a contemporary map if possible, but I guess in the absence thereof, the modern one will suffice. Both images are appropriately licensed.
I would love a contemporary map, it cost me a virtual arm and leg to get the modern way created. Perhaps there's something we could add to the caption that would go some way to alleviate your concern, e.g. exactly as you have written about the bridges, although it would need to be sourced... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the bridges wasn't one that Wikipedia would consider reliable unfortunately. I might have a quick dig around to see if I can find a map anywhere though. Harrias ^talk 19:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this public domain map from 1842 that seems to have the correct number of bridges between Westminster and Putney? If we cropped off the left hand side just past Putney, it would seem appropriate? Harrias ^talk 20:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks awesome. This is lame, I know, but is there any chance you can help with this? I don't have the image tools, nor am I confident about the licensing at Commons for this kind of thing. Of course, if you could show me once, I'll learn and do it next time....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. I'm on my phone now, so obviously can't do it, but I should be able to get it done tomorrow. I'll pass this GA then too. I don't like doing anything other than talk pages on my phone though: I'm worried I'll break something!! Harrias ^talk 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, no rush of course. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The winning margin of 20 lengths is mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but nowhere else, and isn't referenced.
My bad. Winning margins were calculated by dividing the winning time by three, so the one minute win equates to twenty lengths (there was no way of photographing the finishing moment with both boats in the frame...!), but I've added the 20 lengths to the Race section, and it should be referenced by the official website's results page... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, as expected, this is a solid piece of work. Harrias ^talk 09:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and your review. I've addressed your comments above and made changes as noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]