Jump to content

Talk:The Boat Race 1930/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Mostly okay. Some bits where I don't understand what is being said that need to be cleared up.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    "Cambridge were coached by" were -> was
    No, see English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Cambridge were considered "slightly the faster" but Oxford were "coming on"" Cambridge is the team here, so singular: were -> was
    No, again see English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Just one participant in the race was registered as non-British in Cambridge's American cox Robert Egerton Swartwout" "in" seems the wrong word here; suggest a colon.
    I think this is preference only, I've used this phrasing several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "For the fourth year the umpire was Charles Burnell " For the fourth time, or the fourth consecutive year?
    Both, added "consecutive". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oxford's stroke Martineau responded to a push from Cambridge were nearly a length ahead" Something wrong here (word missing?)
    "and" was missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "They extended their lead to two-thirds of a length by Craven Steps but the bend in the river favouring Cambridge, the lead was halved, and by the Mile Post, the Dark Blues led by the length of a canvas." Both the grammar and the arithmetic seem a little off here.
    Reworded a trifle. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Many thanks for the review, I responded to and addressed the comments where appropriate. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Passing now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]