Talk:The Boat Race 1932/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I will complete a comprehensive and thorough review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

The Rambling Man, I've completed my review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments that need to be addressed prior to its final passage to Good Article status. -- Caponer (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede properly summarizes content from all sections of the article.
• I suggest adding to the lead that the victory by Cambridge was the largest winning margin since the 1929 race and the first time in the history of the race that Cambridge had equalled the successful winning streaks of Oxford between 1861 and 1869, and 1890 and 1898.
• The lede is otherwise written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Background

• The caricature of Harcourt Gilbey Gold has been released into the public domain and is therefore available for use here.
• This section is written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Crews

• Following this article's passage, I suggest keeping an eye open for an image of one of the crew members to be placed to the right of the table.
• The table is beautifully formatted and all its contents are sourced by inline citations.
• This section is written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Race

• The Championship Course map product is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free to use here.
• Wiki-link Middlesex and Surrey.
• As mentioned in the lede section of the review, move some content into the lede to better represent this section in the article's summary.
• This section is written well, its contents are internally-cited and verifiable, and I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.

Sorry I didn't get round to this sooner, I didn't seem to receive a notification of the review, I think the bot is a bit screwy at the moment. I've addressed your comments, thanks for the review, let me know if there's anything else I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, everything looks to be in order, sir. Thank you for addressing my comments and questions, and for incorporating these into the article. I hereby pass it to Good Article status. Thanks again and congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)