Talk:The Boat Race 1839/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I will begin my Good Article review of this article momentarily, and I look forward to working with the authors throughout this review process. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• The Rambling Man, I've completed my review of your article, and I find that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status. I do have a few comments/concerns that I've addressed below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Once all the below items have been addressed/resolved, this article will be ready for passage to Good Article! Thank you for all your great work in researching and authoring this article. It is a most interesting one! -- Caponer (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• In the article's lede, it may be necessary to wiki-link titles like "University Boat Races" to The Boat Race; Westminster, Putney, etc. Readers like myself can assume these are London districts, but those less familiar with London would probably click on them for more geospatial awareness. I would also suggest wiki-linking the first mentions of Oxford and Cambridge in the lede. Even though context for the race is provided in the "Background" section, would it be possible to briefly explain what The Boat Race is in the lede? I suggest adapting wording used in the lede in The Boat Race 1859.Other than what is mentioned, the lede pulls adequate information from each section written in the article's prose.

• I've linked some more terms, but I can't really use the suggested lead info from the 1859 article because at this point in the event's history, the event was very sporadic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Internal citations only need to be used once per sentence, so consider consolidating internal citations and saving them for the end of their respective sentences. Instances of this occur in the first sentence of the "Background" section and the next to last sentence in the "Race" section. Please see MOS:PUNCTFOOT for additional guidance.

• Not sure I agree here. Particularly when it comes to citing direct quotations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest wiki-linking "Westminster" and "Putney" in the "Background" section. Should the formal term coxswain used in this section, and wiki-linked as such? Also, could umpire in its first usage be wiki-linked to Referee#Rowing.

• These are linked now, and I have also linked the cox/umpire as sugested. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• The table utilized in the article meets all standards, per MOS:TABLES.
• Is there a verifiable source for the following sentence in the "Race" section?: "After a close start, the Cambridge boat started to draw away and by Vauxhall Bridge were "several boats' lengths" ahead."

• Yes, added (although it was more generally cited already after the next sentence). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, thank you for addressing all my above concerns in such a timely and thorough manner! I appreciate all your hard work on this article, and it pleases me to now pass it to Good Article status! Congratulations, sir. -- Caponer (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)