Talk:Women's Boat Race 2014/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this over the next few days. Relentlessly (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few concerns I have about elements of prose: * "Cambridge were the heavier of the crews and consisted of an all-British crew, while Oxford's boat ..." Clumsy phrasing. Perhaps "Cambridge's crew, the heavier of the two, was entirely British, while Oxford's boat ..." "It was the last time the race would be conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, along a 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) stretch of the River Thames referred to as the Straight Course, used for the Henley Royal Regatta since 1924." I think this needs fewer subclauses, perhaps breaking up into two sentences. It would also be good to know when the course was first used. "Oxford saw three members of the 2013 race return to the crew" "Saw" is an odd choice of word here. Why not "Three members of Oxford's 2013 crew returned to race in 2014"? "inter-Varsity" What does this mean? I suggest "who had rowed for Harvard University against Yale on four occasions". Two connected sentences: "Cambridge made a series of pushes, and while both crews were warned by the umpire to avoid a collision, Oxford continued to extend their lead to win by four lengths in a time of 5 minutes 50 seconds." You have three separate things in one sentence here, unless I've misunderstood it. Does the umpire's warning relate to either Cambridge's series of pushes or Oxford's continuing to extend their lead? This needs breaking up into separate ideas, I think. The source is a bit confusing, I'll admit. ~~"It was the largest winning margin since the 2010 race, six seconds slower than the record time set by Oxford in the 2006 race."~~ ~~This is a slightly clumsy comma splice, since the "six seconds slower" actually refers to the time mentioned in the previous sentence. I suggest you rephrase the two sentences entirely:~~ "Cambridge made a series of pushes; both crews were warned by the umpire to avoid a collision. Oxford continued to extend their lead to win by four lengths, the largest winning margin since the 2010 race. Their time was 5 minutes 50 seconds, six seconds slower than the record time set by Oxford in the 2006 race."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	* "The race, between crews representing Oxford University Women's Boat Club and Cambridge University Women's Boat Club, was umpired by Judith Packer." This is odd phrasing. The crews ought to be the focus of the sentence. Perhaps "The race was contested by crews representing Oxford University Women's Boat Club and Cambridge University Women's Boat Club." And unless Judith Packer's involvement is particularly notable, I don't think it need go in the lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	My only slight doubt was about The Cambridge Student as a reliable source, but I think it's probably OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	* I didn't understand the first paragraph of "Crews". From reading the sources, it seems that there was a trial event held on a different course in December, but it's not clear in what way this was significant or how it relates to the rest of the section. ~~For those less familiar with rowing, it would be good to find some way of explaining the format of the boat, or at least linking Eight (rowing).~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~This is nearly there, just a few tweaks, I think. On hold for seven days. Relentlessly (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)~~ Pass Relentlessly (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The format makes it difficult to respond directly to your concerns but I will do my best in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased the clumsy phrasing.
Reduced clauses down to two.
Don't think there's a need to say all the locations of the previous races, that's covered by the main Women's Boat Race article.
"saw" is perfectly normal in British English.
I've removed "Inter-varsity".
Split the multi-clause sentence.
Complied with your suggestion.
All other reviews of the 162 races I've got to GA are keen on seeing the umpire in the lead.

More responses shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linked trial boat the main Boat Race article.
Linked Eight (rowing) in the lead.

I'm unclear if I've covered everything, but please let me know. Thanks for the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, The Rambling Man, if the review is hard to follow. I'm just using the templates suggested here; I'll use a different approach in future. (Any recommendations welcome.)

I've struck almost all the points in the table above. A couple of things remain:

I'm not going to debate the point about the umpire; it's not what I'd include and I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not bothered one way or the other. I do, however, think it's odd that the sentence structure focuses on the umpire not on the crews.

Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British and perfectly comfortable with "saw" in many contexts. But I think your use is a bit unusual (especially as you suggest they were members of "the race" rather than "the crew"). To my mind, the normal use would be "The race saw the return of several of Oxford's 2013 crew." A more direct phrasing would be better, IMO.

Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again at the first paragraph of "Crews" and I think I understand it now. I'm afraid I hadn't clocked that "the Tideway" referred to part of the Championship Course. I still think this needs more context for those who aren't closely familiar with the Boat Race (which isn't me particularly, by the way: I studied at one of the universities concerned!). Just a few words, like "As part of the build-up to the race, the two universities sent trial boats to race on 19 December 2013. For the first time in the history of the competition, this took place on the Tideway on part of the Championship Course."

Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two concerns in particular are fairly pedantic; I'm not going go to the wall over any of them, so by all means disagree if you wish. But I do think they'd improve the article, which is surely what GA is about! Relentlessly (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. My main aim with this article, without being patronising to anyone, is to help highlight the women's side of this contest, and I really appreciate your detailed review. I certainly don't want an easy pass at GA, let me know if there's anything else I should address. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, all my concerns are dealt with. I've enjoyed working on this article and I'm happy to call it a pass. Relentlessly (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]