Talk:The Boat Race 1877/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's boat race GA review. If I can, I'll review one a day until the backlog of them is cleared.

"the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge" - unless I just missed this in other articles, isn't "Oxford and Cambridge Universities" easier? The caps on "Universities" seems wrong, it looks like an adjective rather than part of a proper noun.
Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a dead heat" - would "a tie" be more preferable, sir?
Nope, it's universally referred to as the "dead heat". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've looked at the sources and that indeed seems to be the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per other Boat Race articles, worth putting who the respective "Blues" are with each university. Particularly importance since the next paragraph talks about the "Light Blues" with no context
Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putney could be wikilinked. (Contrary to popular opinion, there is no Hic sunt dragones" on the District Line's Wimbledon branch)
Thus linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning that Joseph William Chitty was a future Liberal MP - that puts his notability into context without having to look at his own article
Perhaps, but in all honesty, his notability within this article is simply that he was a former rower. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I missed the "Oxford" ... "Oxford" - I even looked at the source. Sorry! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The race commenced" - wouldn't "started" be simpler?
As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Mail described the event as "a great gooseberry" - that's got to be worth putting in somewhere?
If I knew how to put it into context, I'd agree! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most interesting and controversial races, so definitely worth taking to GA in its own right. On hold. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie, this one is really important we get right, at least to GA level as it's something that may well form the basis of an FAC going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, let me put the article up for a DYK - that tends to shake a few copyeditors out of their slumber. For FAC I suspect a greater grilling over opinions both contemporary and current to ensure no stone is left unturned. Anyway, for now I'm personally happy this meets the GA criteria, so passed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, do with it as you see fit. And yes, I agree that a lot more would need to be done for FAC, but that's for another day! Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]