Talk:Women's Boat Race/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Pretty close to an outright pass

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some suggestions below regarding subject/verb agreement (but I'm open to argument)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See below

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have appropriate licences

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Link weir
• add or move the last two sentences in the lead about the television viewership and the 2016 race to the main part of the article, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article
• "Cambridge have led Oxford" -> "Cambridge has led Oxford"
• "Oxford rowed over a weir and were banned from the river" -> "Oxford rowed over a weir and was banned from the river"
• "The First VIII receive university blues, and are therefore more commonly known as the Blue Boat" -> "The First VIII receives university blues, and is therefore more commonly known as the Blue Boat"
• "The Second VIII receive university colours" -> "The Second VIII receives university colours"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review and the comments Hawkeye. Updates made consistent with these suggestions and some small additional improvements. If there is anything else please let me know. Whizz40 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)