Talk:The Boat Race 1979/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Why is this protected? How does that constitute "vandalism"?
See User:Tennis expert etc. Feel free to ask me if you need more on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but I didn't see how those IP addresses were connected to that blocked user. What is the connection I am missing here? In any case, indefinite semi-protection is overkill. maclean (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs are proxies (in Croatia, New Zealand and Finland) used by the disruptive editor in question. Protection is most definitely not overkill if you check the number of reversions on these articles I've had to make over the past week. But if it makes it any easier to proceed, I've unprotected it. Should the indefinitely blocked highly disruptive editor return, I'll be restoring protection should this article be one of his targets. I'm sure you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the protection. In the future, Wikipedia:Protection policy recommends only temporary semi-protection for dealing with such IP-hopping. maclean (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, but in this case I disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
3 images, all Commons-hosted: File:University Boat Race Thames map.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0; File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg & File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg - public domain.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hello Maclean25. Thanks for taking this on. I note you are a very infrequent editor (i.e. fewer than a hundred or so edits in the past year). Are you going to see this review through to its conclusion? If you don't have time to do this, I'd suggest you let this go back to GAN. I don't want these reviews to stall and be forgotten. In any case, thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequent in terms of # of edits maybe but I have written 2 GAs in that time. I selected this article in particular because it seemed like an quick one to review given that it is short and there is a FA and GA precedent on different years of the boat race. Given your participation (and you do seem to be quick), I intend to see the review to its pass or fail conclusion. That said, I am a thorough reviewer and think before I post, which is why I'm questioning the article's edit war which is either a case of denying a blocked user or...something else. maclean (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indefinitely blocked editor. I haven't the time or energy to discuss it in detail, you can find all you need at User:Tennis expert and his sock puppet investigations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Cambridge won the 34th Women's Boat Race, making it their third in a row, and their sixteenth victory in seventeen years.[6] - I couldn't find the Women's results in that citation.
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and broadcast worldwide.[4][5]" - Neither of those citations support that statement. This is either unclear prose (that statement/sentence is referring to the state of the event 35 years later) or it is inferring a conclusion about this race.
Well [4] says "Watson said his crew would be buoyed by the approximately 250,000 spectators at the race site, as well as the 130 million people expected to watch the event on television." and [5] lists the several dozen countries its shown in. Could you suggest a way of keeping this information without it being "unclear prose" (it is written in the present tense, by the way, so there's no inference that it is about this specific edition of the race) or are you advocating just removing it altogether, despite it being background to the race in general. (I've made a minor prose adjustment and added another source, fwiw). Just a general question, is this review going to continue take place one comment at a time? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is an acceptable fix. Alternatively, you could use a future tense regarding what the series would later become because this is an article about a past event and you're speaking about what would be a future state of the series. maclean (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]