Talk:The Boat Race 2004

The Boat Race 2004 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 26, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Boat Race 2004 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from The Boat Race 2004 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Cambridge won the 2004 University Boat Race by six lengths after Oxford's bowman was unseated following a clash of blades?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 2004.

Wikipedia

Rowing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles

To-do list:

Featured Articles:

Raise the rowing (sport) article to featured status.
1. Get article relisted to 'good article status'
2. Put through another round of peer review, see here
3. Nominate for featured status
Ditto for Henley Royal Regatta, The Boat Race , Steve Redgrave

Stubs: see here..

Tag {{Rowing-stub}} onto all rowing stub articles so we can keep track of them.
Expand stubs to at least start class.

Image requests: see here..
Article requests: see here..

Write bios for World Rowing champions (see the redlinks in the templates)

Document FISA database errors

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boat Race 2004/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this one up: I should be able to go through it fully within the next day or two. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put together. I've flicked over some of the other GA boat race articles to see how this compares (very well, obviously). Close to GA as it stands, but a few points, questions and queries to mull over.

Overall

Possibly add an image of the race (or course) to add a little colour to the article? Adding an image of the course would stop people clicking away from the article to see it.
- Added both, as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 2012 article, there seems to be more info about the women's and reserves races. Is there a reason why there isn't a similar amount here?
- I guess the only reason is lack of access to pertinent information. The 2012 race background was still heavily covered by sources to which I have access, while the 2004 one is ancient history. Could you suggest any sources I might use to expand these two a little? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Was there a considered favourite for the race, or was it mixed/too close to call?
- Added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Any chance we could expand the lead just a little? It looks a bit slim at the moment. Maybe mentioning the sponsor (and possibly it being their last year)
- Expanded a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be Women's or women's?
- Should be capitalised I believe... Will ensure consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crews

Should you add a line about the respective weights of the crews?
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Any reason why you've linked The D. Tel (FN 1), but not The Observer (FN 7)? (Poss also worth linking BBC Sport too?
- All linked now I believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fare, really, and no deal-breakers there, but worth thinking around, even if you don't pick up on any of the suggestions. – SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, sorry I didn't get to them sooner, for some reason I didn't receive any notification that the nomination was on hold, and I missed the update to this page on my watchlist. I've responded inline to each of your comments. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that - my fault: I forgot to ping you on the hold. All good now, and the article is strong enough to pass GA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Y

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Y
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Y

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Y

C. No original research: Y
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Y

B. Focused: Y
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: Y
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: Y
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: Y

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Y
Overall:
Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✓ Pass - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]