Talk:The Boat Race 1978/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Preliminary assessment to follow with longer discussion after chart Montanabw ^(talk) 21:41, 16 June 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.	Concise to the point of Some lack of clarity to the non-expert reader. While some things are implied, a statement such as "The Boat Race is an annual competition" would be improved by saying "The Boat Race is an annual rowing competition" - and though the main article is linked at the outset and no need to repeat what is there, plus you have the chart below, perhaps adding the team size (particularly if the number of rowers has changed over the years) before going into the detail of three old blues and such. It is a little jargon-y to someone (like myself) who knows squat about rowing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is quite a ways short for WP:LEAD. The article itself is rather short overall too, so I don't expect three paragraphs, but do you think you can expand it out a bit beyond four sentences? The other sections are a bit light and sketchy also, a paragraph plus a sentence is a bit too light. Am putting in specific comments 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.	Solid references
	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).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See detailed comments below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Maybe a little toooo focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Writes a bit with an "in-universe" style (for lack of a better way to put it) ;-)
	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.	No images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images, which is acceptable for GA. ~~That said Is the logo fair use only for the main article, or were there annual logos developed? Does Flickr have any images? The boat sinking had to be something of a spectacle...~~
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks so far. No images available, I've checked around, that's why I've got the link to the BBC video of the event really. No sign of any logos, and you're right, the current logo wouldn't be allowed under fair use here. I've expanded the lead a little, let me know if it's enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below. This article is a little short and sketchy for GA as it sits. There may not be a lot to add, but here are my thoughts> Montanabw ^(talk)

ran

Background:
Presume "length" here is a boat length, but what is that distance? (i.e. compare horse length)
Yes, length is a boat length and it depends on whether it's a two, a four or an eight. In this case, an eight is approximately 20 metres long, but there is no article on Wikipedia, it would be a little like an article about the lengths of cars or trucks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm wondering if there is a way to make the distances involved clear to the neophyte, perhaps noting the distance in feet or meters in parentheses, as happens with convert templates? I don't want to destroy use of technical language, but the article has a little bit of an "in-universe" tone that had me scratching my head in a couple spots (full disclosure: I live near rivers and lakes, but 1000 miles from an ocean, so nautical stuff often trips me up) --MTBW
Problem is that there's no evidence of the precise length of the boats involved, and to "guess" at it would be WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Well, if no other sources other than what is cited, then I guess we're stuck. You probably aren't taking this to FAC ever anyway, right? ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the boat race is "followed worldwide" (not like, say, the World Cup or the Olympics) so maybe clarify that the BBC broadcasts it worldwide and though I suppose it will be tough to get 1978 figures, if you can get spectator or viewership numbers, that would be cool info to have. ;-)
In general the Boat Race is followed worldwide, it's broadcast these days to around 180 countries, not just the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Perhaps you could add something as far as who the most avid followers are (alumni? Rowing fans? Expatriate Brits?), something tp guide those of us who had never heard of it before? (I don't live in a cave, really I don't. I mean, I know that Harvard and Yale have certain rivalries... but I don't even keep track of the Montana–Montana_State_football_rivalry, so do forgive me!)
In fact, Harvard and Yale have a boat race based on this one. There's no way of me knowing who watches the race, it's certainly broadcast to a potential audience of hundreds of millions, who switches it on, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I guess my point is that the 2014 article you cited for the "worldwide" claim noted "130 million worldwide follow it," which is, of course, not the 1978 numbers, which would be nice to see. But I guess I'm nitpicking at this point and I'm not going to be one of those annoying people who say "you can only prove it for 2014", so never mind. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "During training for the race, Oxford had sunk" are a little jargon-y. Because I have little nautical background, I'd prefer seeing something like "Oxford's boat had sunk when they did X., so they fit splashboards... " Also, don't those special rowing boats have a name for their type of boat and a wiki article to link to? A little bit of background on any other unique aspects of boat design in the late 70s might be of interest if such info exists. Also, why do the boats sink, anyway? Turns, people tip them over, weather and river currents, excess consumption of beer by the rowers...? I mean, in my world, boat races have sinking boats because they are events like this (LOL!).
I'm surprised you find it jargony! The boat sank, yes I'll expand why because it took on too much water in rough conditions, became too heavy and descended below the level of the river, but there's not much more I can say than that! There exists an article on the type of boat (Racing shell) but I have to admit, if I need to start explaining the mechanics of boat races, this article will become far to detailed and miss the point, i.e. to describe the Boat Race of 1978. Links to rowing etc are provided to enable those who are finding it difficult to click through for more information, I don't think it's appropriate to repeat all that detail in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added material and wikilinking helped! I suppose it's proper jargon to say "Cambridge sank" as opposed to "the Cambridge boat sank"? I'm visualizing buildings falling into a sinkhole or something, but I think that's just me! BUT things like "Oxford won in a time of 18 minutes and 58 seconds as Cambridge sank" are awkward - it reads as if there was a correlation between their winning time and the other boat sinking or that they would not have won unless Cambridge had sunk. From the narrative (and the very helpful map) it looks like the race was at least 3/4 done and Oxford was winning when the mishap occurred and that Oxford had been making good time until then, but finished rather cautiously so that they didn't get into trouble as well? So was the winning time still quite good in spite of their caution or was it a really poor time because they slowed down after Cambridge sank? I guess I'm looking for a minor rewrite in the lead and a wee bit more detail in the body text. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Oxford won in a time of 18 minutes and 58 seconds as Cambridge sank" perhaps it would be less connected if I said ""Oxford won in a time of 18 minutes and 58 seconds while Cambridge sank" ? I've now linked to side-by-side racing so it should be clearer that the winning time is somewhat irrelevant to what happens to the opposition crew. The time was mediocre, but there's no reliable source to say that, I could compare it to the record at the time, but given the race events, the conditions, etc, it would feel like OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearer. Or even, to expand the lead in the process, perhaps consider "Oxford won in a time of 18 minutes and 58 seconds. The race was complicated by bad weather, and when faced with choppy water, a strong headwind and horizontal, driving rain, the Cambridge boat, which lacked splashboards, took on water and sank." Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have expanded. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crews: if there is anything more to add of interest, add it, though given that it's a chart section, it doesn't have to be bulked out a lot.
As you can see (and as you noted below) there's only one rower with an article. The others are non-notable and therefore very little (if any) information beyond what's in the table is available in either paper or electronic form. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have one rower linked, Rankov, may be worth noting that this was the first of his multiple races or something.
Interesting point, I was tempted, but then I thought "what relevance does that fact have to this specific race"? As Rankov racks up his wins, I note that in subsequent articles because it becomes more and more relevant. In this race, he hadn't won squat so the fact he would eventually win six seems irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's now 2014, I don't think it's a spoiler to mention that he went on to be even more important. Something like that might encourage me to click on to the 1979 and subsequent races to get the rest of the story... Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem a proclivity of American articles, i.e. "He would go on to...." which is something I just don't get. I could pick any individual in the boats, the umpire etc and go on a little bit about what they got up to in future years, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to this specific article, i.e. the one about the Boat Race of 1978. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only relevance here is their future as rowers (except, maybe if one later became Prime Minister or won a Nobel Prize), if they get a linked article, it's a bit to note. My thinking is that the article is barely long or comprehensive enough or GA, so I'm looking at stuff to add. Seems a line after the discussion of returning rowers on the teams stating "The 1978 race also marked the debut of Boris Rankov, who went on to crew for five more winning teams." Or something. JMO. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added something similar but not mentioned the wins because that's a bit of a spoiler at this point in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the capital (P) means by Michelmore and Horton, perhaps have a small key in the footer where you list the source?
Yep, key went missing, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "Old Blues" doesn't explain what an "Old" blue is (I presume a "Blue" in the UK is something like a Varsity letter in the states), I presume it's slang for returning team members who had been awarded a blue, but it is jargon-y.
It's not jargon, it's a commonly used term, so much so we have an article (which is linked) on it to explain it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So an "old blue" is just someone who had been on the team before and got their blues awarded? This may be UK English more than jargon, the wikilinked article explains what Blues are but the "old" bit threw me. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link was always there, it was never intended to be too complicated to understand, I know it's a little jargon, but it's entirely how it's represented in all major coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can live with that; this isn't an article that's going to be accessed by elementary kids looking for a school report; hand-feeding the reader isn't critical here. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Race description:
Can you link Surrey station - and why does that location matter?
No, there isn't an article for this. It's the side of The Championship Course (linked in the previous section) which was selected. Per The Boat Race article, a more detailed explanation as to why this is particularly relevant can be found there, rather than in this race-specific article. (But see below....) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image and links helped. Thanks Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What were "reasonable conditions" - I presume this has something to do with weather?
Indeed, clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" Surrey bend" leads me to wonder if there's a map of the Thames that shows the race route. Might be a useful illustration for the article if such a thing exists.
Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the reserve race, Goldie beat Isis.." What is the reserve race, why is it important, and who are Goldie and Isis? Can this be either expanded upon with some context to again assist the neophyte? ;-)
Fair enough, linked to the main article where these are discussed in detail and linked Goldie (no article on Isis). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction:
Is a re-row a common thing to do or was that an unusual request?
No it's not common at all, that's why it's important to note it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe say something like that, again, for the neophyte. "First time in 20 years" or something. Perhaps also if being declined is the usual response or if that was even more unusual. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible (or at least very difficult) for me to say how many times this has happened, when it last happened etc, there's no distinct source for it. The rules allow for the is to happen every time but given most races finish without controversy and with clear winners, this is a seldom-invoked action. Not sure what more I can add without going into OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If sinking isn't very common but it happens, can you expand on why it was so "painful" for Mark Horton (he wasn't a rower, so what was all the drama about?) It's a little out of context, but sounds like there was an interesting story there.
Horton rowed at number four in the Cambridge boat? The pain comes from losing the Boat Race. Crews spend six hours a day, six days a week for six months preparing for one race and, in this case, the rare sinking meant it was all irrelevant, it mattered not how well they could/would row, all the preparation was in vain. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion was him being listed as "C.M." in the chart, but Mark in the narrative, also as there was no key for the "P" - it sounded like he was the president of the university, not the boat team. (I'm American, remember... we call a Chancellor (education) a "University President." You probably could still hand-hold a bit and say "boat team president C. M. "Mark" Horton..." or something akin to that... with all that, it makes sense now. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if you ever read a cricket scorecard, you'd know that cricketers are always recorded this way, e.g. "B C Lara" instead of Brian Lara. The historic records of the Boat Race follow this trend, even to this day in their official records. I've tweaked the prose a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All for now, I think that's the basic review. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've responded in-line to each comment and addressed those that I think I need to. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most are now all better, I commented where I still have a few caveats. Once those are addressed, with a wee bit more on the lead once the body text is fixed, I'll probably be able to pass this. On your new material, is an "umpire" the same as an "umpire" in baseball or a sports referee - a rules-enforcing official? Perhaps wikilink the job? Montanabw ^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you could suggest what's missing from the lead I'll happily oblige. As for "umpire", yes, it's like that, but there's not a suitable article for the link, the rules of the Boat Race are very simple, as you can read here. I would hesitate to add a definition of the Boat Race umpire's role in each and every of the 160 articles I'm working on when it probably belongs in the main article of The Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Umpire#Rowing? I made one suggestion for expanding the lead above. Probably not a lot more to add. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the lead a little further, added some stuff on Rankov, linked Umpire, I think that's everything! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Agreed. It meets the criteria. I'd nitpick a few things, but they aren't required. The article is probably as comprehensive as it can be without bringing in material that would simple be a repeat from the general overall The Boat Race article, and that would be a waste of bandwidth. Fun to work on! Montanabw ^(talk) 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]