Talk:The Boat Race 1972/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Has a lot of jargon, see below~~ fixed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~Some dead links, see below. Also some formatting issues~~ Fixed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~A little bit too much jargon and insider language for the non-UK reader, see below~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

YMultiple dead links are popping up here that need to be fixed: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Boat_Race_1972 Most of them are from http://theboatraces.org/, may need to do wayback links (?)
Yes, helpfully (or not) the official website changed last month to take into account the fact that all three races would take place on the same day, i.e. boatrace.org became boatraces.org and all the /men and /women pages got lost, with no redirects. I have been going through all the articles I've written, and have got to the early 60's, so hadn't quite gotten round to this one. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YMaybe this is just me, but I prefer to see "Notes" before "Bibliography".
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YA lot of the refs have only accessdate, not date of story - if no date, I understand, but do check that.
All checked, no additional publication dates are available. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a need for an overall copyedit for basic awkward phrasing and typos, things like "and followed throughout the United Kingdom and broadcast worldwide" or "Cambridge were being coach by Lou Barry "
Well I've fixed those, I'm not aware of other such issues, unless you can point them out? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I see anything, is it OK if I jut wikignome it, providing I don't screw up anything else? Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I'm certain you won't screw anything up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a bit short for GA quality; try to expand it out to two full paragraphs based on the unique aspects of that years' race, things like the heaviest crew adn such...
Have expanded a bit more, anything else you feel should be added? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YTo the non-Brit, I have no clue what the "reserve" race is, can it at least be linked or explained? Getting the names of the boats means little in this context... not even sure what a reserve race is - the main Boat Race article describes it, buried in the middle of that article, perhaps at least an anchor link would be helpful
Reserve team is pipelinked. I'm somewhat surprised that there's no concept of "reserve" in American English, like reserve troops? Anyhow, is the link sufficient? I could add more to the main Boat Race article (which I intend to improve in due course) if that would help? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a "reserve" concept too - the secondary thing - reserve champion, backup team, etc... but there were multiple senses (an extra boat in reserve, for example) so linking it as reserve team made better sense! Thanks! Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YNote where Surrey station is and what their other choice was. Links would be fine if there are any
Well The Championship Course is already linked, and I've noted that Cambridge were thus given the Middlesex side of the river. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works, particularly for those of us who last visited London over 30 years ago... ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YAlso find unclear jargon (I'm a hopeless landlubber here) - "a canvas lead" is linked to a glossary, but the glossary only defines what canvas is, not the distance implied in the term "canvas lead"
Have rephrased that specific issue to incorporate "the length of a canvas" (which reads a little odd to me, but hopefully is pitched midway between nonsense and jargon!). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link helped, no need to devolve clear to nonsense or oversimplify. That will do. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YAlso, need to link or define "rating"
Have replaced with "stroke rate" which I believe is accessible to most people, and linked to the glossary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would love a bit of elaboration on Cambridge's training "disasters" and "crabs" - sounds like something rather amusing to give a more human element to the story.
Have added a tiny bit more, not much in those sources other than the crabs and shipwrecks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YLike "blue" in the lead where you mention the Umpire. Again, non-Brit readers (who haven't read previous articles) will not know what a "blue" is.
Linked as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ypresume "length" is a boat length, which is how long? May want to link or define that at first use.
Varies, depends on the boat. According to this they are "approximately 19.9m (62 ft) long" but the main point here is really that it's a visual thing, a "boat's length" is hardly an accurate description yet it's one that has been used pretty much since the beginning of the Boat Race in 1829. Back in the day they used to convert the winning margin into boat lengths (I can't recall exactly but it was something like 3 seconds equated to a boat length, again, hardly scientific as the distance covered in such a time is entirely dependent on the speed!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, and in horse racing, we just all agree it's 8 feet. Oh well. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crew section seems a bit light compared to your other Boat Race GAs, (which fellows were the " four British Olympic team candidates" for example?) and the last sentence is a serious run-on that needs a good copyedit. Whole paragraph needs a copyedit, things like saying "per rower" twice in the same sentence...
Enhanced from a source I had but didn't use. Hopefully not unpleasant prose either.... (named and sourced the four Olympic hopefuls too... ) Of course, feel free to tweak if the prose still disappoints.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All for now, that's really about all there is. Unless I spot something else to add to the list, you're close Montanabw ^(talk) 06:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I've addressed some of the easy things, I'll need a little bit of time on the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you can. These are fun! Just be sure to ping a little about what's unique about each year... Montanabw ^(talk) 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm done on my second run through of your comments. Thanks again, let me know where I stand! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go! Montanabw ^(talk) 18:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]