Talk:The Boat Race 1865/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go

Lead

"one of the most sensational races in this history?" Well the quote is there in the body and put against the source, but I wonder do we need to qualify that with something, since in the mid 19th century the history and prestige of the boat race was nowhere near in size to what it is now
Tried to make it contextual, i.e. a reminder that it had only been going for 22 years. Other than that, it's a direct quote about a sporting event, so I'm not sure how much more I should add from my own personal thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

excluding the "dead heat" of 1877 - is this appropriate to mention in an article about the 1865 race? It sounds like something that should be reserved for the main article or that specific one?
Excellent point, and now I have a "to do" list item to ensure this nonsense doesn't appear in any article prior to the dead heat! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"both of whom had represented the Cantabrigians twice before" - "the team twice before" might be easier to parse, I know what a Cantabrigian is, but not everyone will
Switched and rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Race

I'm concerned about the use of the word "steamer" - I wouldn't clarify it any more than what's in prose, but is there at least part of some article we could link to?
Linked steamboat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's that same concern about "shot" that I mentioned the other day
Switched to "passed under". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"where the Dark Blues once again drew back into contention" - not sure about "back into contention" - as before, it just doesn't feel quite right for an encyclopedia. I'm wondering if we could just take this clause out, to be honest
Reviewed the source and rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Just minor stuff again, so I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I've had a go at each of your comments. Let me know if anything needs more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie, thanks for taking this on. I'll make a start properly as soon as I can, hopefully tomorrow lunchtime. I very much appreciate your interest and reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the GA reviews I do are long hard slogs (this one and this one spring to mind), so these are a nice light relief that still helps improve article quality. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I think I addressed the issues noted above, let me know if there's anything else I can do to make the article better. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the lead a bit, but other than that I think we're good to go for a pass in this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]