Talk:The Boat Race 2005/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'll pick this one up too: again, it may be a day or so before I get going. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've put this page on watchlist so I don't miss it! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall Again, nicely put together, and close to GA as it stands. I've made a couple of very small tweaks: nothing too much.

Lead

• A little on the brief side, but it's a short article, and it seems pointless to repeat the who article in the lead!
  • I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The race, umpired by six-time Boat…" Worth linking "umpired"?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Crews

• "Oxford coach Dan Topolski rated both crews as "good enough to make an Olympic final".": this looks like it's a direct quote from Topolski, but the source doesn't seem to suggest it is.
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Race description

• "Oxford out-rated Cambridge": it may be worth a footnote to explain what "out-rated" means, for those who may not know.
  • Linked to our glossary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• No dab or dead links, refs are solid.

Again, minor pickings from me, and no deal-breakers again, just a little tweak here and there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks again, you're a gent. Have responded and updated accordingly, hopefully by the time you're back I'll have made the lead a bit fatter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent: all good and happy to pass here.

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) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)