Talk:The Boat Races 2016/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this. Relentlessly (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is, of course, very good already, and I only have minor tweaks to suggest.

There's a "to do" comment at the very top of the page – are these still to do?!
Yes, I'll address that, it's something of a wishlist for FA completeness, but I'll see what I can do. Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The women's race saw Oxford win easily" – this feels like journalese to me.
Uh, yeah. However, if you look at some of the early race reports, winning "easily" was a term commonly given to a winning margin that was so large it was almost too impolite to note. Do you have a suggested revision that would sound less unappealing? Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "easily" is a problem, but I think "saw" is. Boat races don't "see" anything. I know it's a widespread formulation in journalism, especially online, but I don't think it's quite encyclopaedic language. Relentlessly (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In place of "saw", perhaps write this in the active voice - "Oxford easily won the women's race"?--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks both, I've rephrased. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"all four senior races, the men's, women's, men's reserves' and women's reserves', were held on the same day" – the punctuation here makes it read as if it was "all four senior races and the men's, women's, men's reserves' and women's reserves'". Obviously logic shows otherwise, but perhaps brackets or endashes would accomplish the parenthesis more clearly.
Agreed, en-dashed. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"For the fourth year, the men's race was to be sponsored by BNY Mellon while the women's race sees BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors." Two things: first, "sees", as above. Second, the tenses are a little confusing.
I have tweaked this. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sean Bowden returned as Chief Coach" – had he gone somewhere? If not, "return" is a little ambiguous.
Well, it's a turn of phrase I suppose. Since the coaches go off and do different things each year, and then return for the prelude to the BR etc, that's what I meant. Anyway, have tweaked. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the President Henry Hoffstot". This is surprising capitalisation. I suggest "the club's president, Henry Hoffstot,"
Done. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"umpire Harris" – this is a false title. I don't think the name is necessary: "the umpire" would do.
Done. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Dark Blue crew contained a single rower with Boat Race experience in Jamie Cook, a member of the victorious 2015 crew" Is this to say that Cambridge had no rowers with Boat Race experience? If so, perhaps say "The only rower on either side with Boat Race experience was Oxford's Jamie Cook, a member of the victorious 2015 crew."
No, that's an omission, to do. Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed, silly mistake on my behalf. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Cambridge made the better start and held a slight lead but both crews passed the Mile Post level, before OUWBC made a push to hold a half-length lead after five minutes" This doesn't quite make sense. I think you mean "Cambridge made the better start and held a slight lead, but after passing the Mile Post level, OUWBC made a push to hold a half-length lead after five minutes".
I'll take a closer look. Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased per your suggestion, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Oxford passed the finishing post in 21 minutes 49 seconds, 71 seconds and 24 lengths ahead of the Light Blues" should I think be "Oxford passed the finishing post in 21 minutes 49 seconds and 71 seconds, 24 lengths ahead of the Light Blues"
I'm honestly not happy with either, so I'll have a think. Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stuck with lengths, that's what'll be officially recorded. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of sourcing to the Boat Race Company, which is slightly questionable as an independent source, but I don't think there's anything sufficiently controversial for it to matter.

Indeed, some of the run-up to the race is scarcely covered elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other point, which is a question rather than an objection, is to ask why Isis, Blondie, etc. don't need italicisation as boats normally do...

Good point. There's probably no good reason, I'll have a look around to see if anyone else does that and take further action as required. Pending The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's tempting to say yes, they should all be in italics. That change will affect a few dozen articles so I'll need to be 100% before doing so, although I believe you're probably right. Can I give you my assurance that once I'm done, I'll adjust every single article accordingly? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to do here. In the meantime, on hold. Relentlessly (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Relentlessly. I have made a start and will ping you again when I think I'm ready for a re-review. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relentlessly, I'm done for most of it, the italic names remains a to do, but I'd like to be 100% as I said above. Let me know if there's anything more I can do? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks good to me. Regarding the italicisation, the article is supposed to be "good", not "perfect"! I'm happy to ✓ Pass this. Relentlessly (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]