Talk:The Boat Race 1961/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This one's got a picture of Lord Snowdon in it, so how could I resist?

Lead

• "It was a race which was delayed" - not sure the wording here is the best fit. How about "The 1961 race was delayed, the lead changed hands several times ... " etc etc

  Got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "and broadcast worldwide" - same problem that was in the 1962 race article, it wasn't broadcast worldwide then

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Cambridge had not lost three consecutive races" - looking at the source though, it was five consecutive losses (1909 - 1913). How about "Cambridge has not lost more than two consecutive races" instead?

  Well... the paper sources (which you may not have access to) make it clear that the last threesome loss was 1911, 1912 and 1913, so the last time they lost three in a row was 1913.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• It would be worth mentioning why Snowdon was there ie: he previously coxed for Cambridge

  Excellent point. Added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• File:Antony Armstrong-Jones 1965.jpg is not actually a picture of him at the 1961 race, so needs (pictured in 1965) or something similar in the caption.

  Ok, never really felt that necessary but will do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Race

• Oxford began to look "laboured" - according to whom?

  Ok, if I add too many more clauses to that sentence I'd win an award. I've rephrased and removed the "laboured" quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll never be able to sneak luxury items like "beleaguered" over the border, most Wikipedians can't even spell "beleaguered"

• "Cambridge overtook the beleaguered Dark Blue boat" - I wouldn't bother with "beleaguered", it's just a bit too colourful for an encyclopedia article in my view

  I know, it was a luxury item. I'll remove. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary

• I can't think of anything else, so I'll put the review on hold awaiting improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, once again, for your assistance in this and your review. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Everything looks okay, so that's another one in the bag. I see several other GA reviewers have picked up the baton and are slowly working through the review pile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks again. There are at least 60 more I need to do, so any further assistance will be received with undying gratitude! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)