Talk:The Boat Race 1889/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have begun a comprehensive review of this article. Upon first reading, this article is well-written and looks like it meets the majority of Good Article criteria. I will complete my review within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks for all your hard work! -- Caponer (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, The Rambling Man, I've completed my review of your article, and as I intimated before, I feel it easily meets Good Article criteria. Before its passage, I do have some comments and suggestions for your to address. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. I commend your effort on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• I would add a re-worked sentence from the "Race" section to the Lede: "It was Cambridge's fourth consecutive victory and their fifth in six years, with the fastest winning time since Oxford's victory in the 1882 race."

  I've expanded a little in the tradition of some of the other articles that have been through GAN. It's not identical to your suggestion, but it goes some way to expanding it and not being overly repetitive of the main Race section. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• All references of content is internally-cited and verifiable. (I was able to round up the two offline references).

  Jolly good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

• In the first sentence of the "Background" section, I suggest consolidating the referenced source at the end with one internal citation.

  Have done, although I prefer to keep citations next to quotations generally. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is it incorrect to say that Cambridge were "the" reigning champions?

  Well, from my perspective, Brit Eng allows the current phrasing. Either seems acceptable to my ear, yet in this sentence, no "the" seems a little better. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The image is verified as fair use.

  Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• All references of content is internally-cited and verifiable.

  Super cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Crews

• The caricature is verified as fair use.

  Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• All references of content is internally-cited and verifiable.

  Super cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The table is properly formatted, the links are appropriate, and measurements are standard.

  Super duper cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Race

• No suggested edits in this section; I commend the creation and inclusion of the fair use map product.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your comments, I've addressed the issues as I saw fit and responded to your comments inline. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, thank you for your timely responses to my above comments and questions. I've re-reviewed the article with your latest additions, and I hereby certify it for Good Article status! Congratulations yet another GA achievement! -- Caponer (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)