Talk:The Boat Race 2004/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)
• 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)

Crews

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Y

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Y

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Y

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Y

   C. No original research: Y

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Y

   B. Focused: Y

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: Y

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: Y

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: Y

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Y

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: All good: I am happy to ✓ Pass - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)