Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boat Race 2003/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Boat Race 2003

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot on the heels of "a man jumping in front of two boats" and "cleavers not spoons", I humbly submit to you this meagre offering. It seemed unlikely that anything would match the excitement of the 2002 race but this race took the proverbial biscuit. Dramaz beforehand with broken oars and wrists, and the closest finish in the long history of the event. The winning margin is estimated to have been approximately five hundredths of a second over the course of an 18-minute race. That's close. Anyway, as ever thanks for your time and energy should you feel the urge to review and comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

As in the previous FAC, this is nicely put together and covers everything it should. One minor quibble first: the blades in "close contact". They are either in close proximity, or they are in contact. Close contact is a tautology.

Aside from that minor point, I happy to support as is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Thanks for your review, updates, and everything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

Happy to support. A really readable article (even to me for whom rowing is pronounced differently and is a domestic activity), balanced, well referenced and comprehensive. I have commented elsewhere that "The race is conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, but in 2015 is slated to be held on the River Thames" seems geographically dubious, as Henley is on the River Thames, and a tweak there might be desirable. Also, I'm sure the nominator has an eye on WP:DATED, and will adjust the "slated for 2015" aspect next year, but I just mention the point (with a certain tentativeness, having in my time raised the same point at FACs by eminent contributors including Wehwalt and Ssilvers and being fairly robustly reassured). Otherwise, nothing but praise. This is one of the finest in a developing series of Boat Race articles that are collectively and individually a feather in Wikipedia's cap. Tim riley talk 13:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, yes, thanks for the support and I most certainly acknowledge that I'll need to update a fair few articles, around 60 or so come next Easter. Having said that, it's nothing compared to the fact that the official Boat Race website has changed from "theboatrace.org" to "theboatraces.org" (and removed /men and /women qualifiers) without bothering to add a single redirect. I've probably made 200 edits fixing that little treat! But hey ho. Thanks again for the time you've spent on my articles and your support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see this review is overdue some comments, so here we go:

In the lead, "along the River Thames" is a bit vague. I would say "along the tidal stretch of the River Thames in south-west London", and I'd include the length of the race here, to give full force to the one-foot winning margin.
Okay, have expanded a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of words used to describe the race, "incredible" appears in the lead, but is not in any of the quotations cited in the main text
Have found the quote and added to reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race." I don't think that this is leadworthy information, since neither of these facts is relevant to the race itself.
But the reseve and women's race are expanded upon, albeit mildly, in the main article and I believe the lead should summarise the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the main text, Background section, rather than just saying "south-west London" you should give the starting and finishing points (Putney to Mortlake), and perhaps emphasise that the race is rowed upstream. (note "south-west" should be hyphenated)
Added P&M, but the race hasn't alway been rowed upstream so I'm reluctant to add yet another "usually"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the term "bow-man". I may be wrong, but certainly at my (keen rowing) school we called him the "bow", and that's the term I remember from commentaries, press reports, etc. There is a linked article which seems to verify my feeling about this.
Ok, replaced with a wikilinked bow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"line-up" is another word that in BritEng requires a hyphen (per Shorter OED and OD of E)
Hyphenated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Cambridge crew had a 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member advantage" would be a little more elegant as "The Cambridge crew had an advantage of 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member."
Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"underdogs" – link to WP article
really? I thought that was a common enough term. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link stroke
Linked to Stroke (rowing)#Stroke seat. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the main race description I can only discern two changes in the race's lead: at Hammersmith Bridge when Oxford overtook Cambridge, and on the approach to Barnes Bridge when Oxford regained the advantage. The article lead says "The lead changed three times during the course of the race" – when did the third occur?
Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as I said, the BBC explicitly used the phrase "three times", but as you're not convinced, I've changed it to twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actual race description, a mere 277 words, does appear rather brief, given the crescendo of superlatives in the lead which introduces this account. Such an exciting race should surely be more fully described, and I am sure that a little more detail could be added. For example, you could point out the significance of the toss, and of Cambridge's choice of the Surrey side. Also, you mention Oxford's slightly higher stroke rate at the beginning of the race, but there is no further mention of stroke rate at other points in the rate. I would really like to know what the respective stroke rates were in the final minute or so of the race, when Cambridge closed in on Oxford's lead. There is a whole book about the race (Blood Over the Water); shouldn't this be a source?
I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not asking you to explain how the toss had impacted on all the previous 160 races. What I had in mind was something like this: "Cambridge won the coin toss and elected to start from the southern bank (the "Surrey side") of the Thames. In doing so, they yielded a slight initial advantage to Oxford, which they could hope to reverse after the first mile, when a major loop in the river's course favours the Surrey station". Personally I would find such an additional sentence helpful. I'm not insisting that you consult the Blood Over the Water source, although I think it would be interesting to do so, as it provides a perspective from the race's participants. I will not, however, oppose on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it depends on the way the wind blows as well. There's no clear cut advantage, as the stats show. To claim such would be synthesis, and I'll leave it to the main article for a more comprehensive analysis of the 160 races to determine whether or not it makes a significant difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm obviously hitting a brick wall here so I'll refrain from further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a brick wall, just a disagreement over the fact you want to include stuff in every one of the 160 articles which is generic; I believe this detail should go in the The Boat Race article, unless particularly relevant to a certain year's race. Thanks for your comments though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the (albeit brief) descriptions of the reserve and women's races? The article is about the "Boat Race", not races, and we already have the results of these supporting events.
It is, but the tradition around the event means that the reserve race and the women's blue race are considered relevant, hence the brief coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to newspapers that don't have online links should have page numbers. See 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 33, 39
Yeah, my oversight. I'll need to talk to my source source about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed now using URLs and the {{Subscription required}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article needs a little further work, particularly the incorporation of material from what appears to be a highly relevant source, unused at present. I hope, however, that any additional material will retain the plain, spare prose style, which is a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I've fixed several of your points, one or two I'm not too sure of, one or two are still outstanding and I will address as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that TRM (temporarily blocked) has asked on his talk page for this FAC to be withdrawn. I leave it to coordinator discretion whether to action this request (and if so how quickly), or whether this is now (thanks to the work of the reviewers above, as well as TRM) so close to the finishing post that it can be allowed to complete the course, with or without TRM's assistance in the last push. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the same thing, I suggest to leave it open a bit. Perhaps it can be "rescued" in a collaborative effort? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given some of the outstanding comments, I'm not sure if the article/review can be successfully adopted in TRM's absence (though feel free to try and convince me otherwise). I have however left a note at his talk page to say I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if he'd consider returning to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll keep it open. However, beyond Brian's comments, some of which I don't agree with, there's nothing further to action right now... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Repetive prose in the lead

As a result of a collision between the Cambridge boat and a launch, a member of the Cambridge crew was replaced just two days before the race. As a result of his replacement, the race featured two sets of brothers, both on opposing sides, for the first time.

As a result ... followed by next sentence starting with same.

Check throughout ?

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Boat Race is a side-by-side rowing competition ... " except according to The Boat Race, it was called that in 2003, but it is now the BNY Mellon Boat Race ... can a parenthetical be added to clarify that? All of the "Background" section is history, but the current name doesn't seem to be mentioned. (I may have missed it.)

It is called that (for sponsorship reasons) but much like Football League Championship (currently referred to as the "Sky Bet Championship") our articles aren't tagged with sponsorship names etc. The more recent articles include a mention as to who sponsors them or sponsored them, including this one by Aberdeen Asset Management. Or do you think I need to add something like ".. which as of 2014 is referred to as the BNY Mellon Boat Race for sponsorship reasons..."? This would become another maintenance issue when the sponsor changes (yet again...) in due course mind you... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the sponsors change that often, maybe best left alone. Although adding a brief clause wouldn't hurt either. Your choice. I was flummoxed by why there was a "The" in the article title, which led me to the main article, which led me to that info ... so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge's Tim Wooge, the 30-year-old stroke rowing in his third Boat Race, ... I don't know what this means? Is it rowing jargon I'm unfamiliar with, or is there a missing word? What is a "30-year-old stroke"?

Have linked Stroke (rowing), other than that I'm not sure how to be clearer without making it too simple... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha ... it is a rowing term ! I thought it meant "bloke" or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBSP check needed, eg 18 minutes.

Tried to catch 'em all...'. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, I appreciate your time and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, <unwatch>, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; as always, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 09:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting. I don't know if this is a copyediting comment or if I'm asking for a personal favor, maybe some of both: could you reduce the number of superlatives in the lead? There are a lot of things in the world that people feel just as passionate about as this Boat Race, and I think the main thing stopping writers from loading up their articles with superlatives (on and off Wikipedia) is a kind of compact: other people are restraining themselves, so I'll restrain myself too. I get nervous about what other writers might start getting away with when I see a lot of superlatives in a lead. - Dank (push to talk) 10:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to reduce it a shade, but the point is that this is supposed to have been the most incredible race in an event which has taken place since 1829. To lose by, what, 0.05 seconds over a 20-odd minute race is crazy, there's no other sporting analogy I can think of that comes close. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes are perfect, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am grateful to anyone who takes interest in this, but lately the comments are simply copyediting requests and nothing more. This nomination could use some further suggestions as to what would encourage contributors to support. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of good reasons to be interested in just the lead; one is, I'm looking at all of them, and I don't have time to read and support everything at FAC. For the other reason, I'll have to wait for the relevant RfC to close before I'm comfortable talking about it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the RfC is closed and I have a new hat. Your point is quite valid, and I'll have a chat with the FAC and the other TFA coords. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relucant ~~oppose~~ because I think you need to get hold of a second-hand copy of Blood Over Water (1p + postage on Amazon at present!) and use that in the article. Not that many boat races get a book written about them, and I don't think this article would be comprehensive without reference to it. Sorry. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've since got hold of the book, a primary source (shiver) no less, full of opinion. But I'll see if there's anything useful in it that I can bring to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my oppose for now, not on the basis that the article is ready for promotion, but on the basis that I trust that TRM will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff in that book in good time and I wouldn't want the FAC to have to restart on my account. Once he has found anything of use in the book and added it, the article should be close to perfection. Well, as perfect as a Tab can write, that is... Bencherlite ^Talk 12:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite's friendly dig (Oxonian, we assume) is interesting, because in reviewing various articles in this series I have never had the slightest idea where The Rambling Man's sympathies lay. Full marks for immaculate neutrality throughout. Tim riley talk 15:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I have found myself (or at least someone else has found me) literally unconscious at the end of one of these events. Having had to replace the Blue cox for my college on one occasion, and trying to tell a Canadian Olympic medal-winning rower that he wasn't quite doing what I needed him to do didn't go down well at all... I've had a quick perusal of the book that Bencherlite notes, it's mostly guff and backslap but I'm certain I can derive a couple of helpful quotes from it. Stand by. And thanks, as ever, to those of you who have the time and energy to comment. Always appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race. - I would rather we avoid a one-sentence paragraph
Fair enough, merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the 1984 race was held on a Sunday, it had been postponed from the Saturday following a collision between the Cambridge boat and a barge. - works best as a footnote, not part of the running text
I'm not sure I agree. The race has been scheduled since 1829 and the rarity of Sunday races is still worthy of more than a footnote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but in 2015 is slated to be held on the River Thames. - not quite relevant to the 2003 race
No, but the background section is intended as a potted history of the race including what is happening these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Livingston, the Oxford number four, noted that in the practice start for the race, Oxford achieved a stroke rate of 49 strokes per minute, which he described as "beautiful". - again, any way to expand that or work it in somewhere?
I've removed it for the moment, I haven't had time to read through the puffy book that it seems others think is important that I include information from. I may try to read it again but I can't guarantee it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Matthias Kleinz - mention the team?
No need, it relates to the same collision, there's no ambiguity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
representing the largest disparity between the crews since the 1990 race and the lightest Dark Blue crew since the 1975 race. - perhaps remove the two "race"s?
No, we're not allowed easter egg links, so I can't simply link to years. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGG simply states that links should be "intuitive". It is not a pact that all articles should be represented exactly as titled. That being said, my concerns would be addressed by finding a way to avoid repeating "race" in the same sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've had people opposing other articles for this topic, but anyway, I've changed the first "race" to "event". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
more than one stone per man - could we avoid "stone" for American and Canadian readers?
No, but have added conversion to kg for Americans and Canadians. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps split the race and finish into separate paragraphs?
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any play-by-play coverage of the women's and reserve races?
Not that I can find. It's unfortunate that, although the three races are the prominent ones, just the main one (until 2015) gets the 99% share of coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An estimated 400 million people worldwide watched the event on television, - That's a heck of a number. Where do they get their figures? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I'm not the person to ask about the veracity of a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the huge number, I'd be much more comfortable if we were able to present whose estimate it was. 400 million is apparently as big as Eurovision... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. If you simply Google "400 million boat race" you'll see it reported in many reliable sources, including the BBC. I don't think it's then up to me to derive how they got to that number. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay - Both freely licensed, own works (a status supported by the EXIF data and other considerations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 15:43, December 28, 2014
Support on prose, though there is one minor nitpick: the Quarrell source has an error message showing up, saying that it is missing a URL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted it to use the {{cite news}} template rather than {{cite web}} which hopefully will fix the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.