Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boat Races 2016/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 [1].

The Boat Races 2016

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Boat Race article... I've brought three or four to FAC before with some level of success, and I worked on keeping this one up to date, so much so that it was posted to ITN within hours and promoted to GA within days of the actual event concluding. As ever, I'm eternally grateful for each and every comment made here in an attempt to improve the article to something Wikipedia can be proud of. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a high quality article. I do think it misses on the economics of the race. I assume there is no monetary prize, but maybe this should be spelled out since pretty much every sports competition out there has a prize. Also, the article misses on the TV coverage: broadcast outside UK? viewers? paid rights? Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nergaal. This year's race has scant sources about the broadcasting, we have the usual 250,000+ spectators along the Thames but I'll need to do some digging to see if there's anything out there regarding the international viewing figures - as you know these are typically ridiculed (estimates range up to the 100s of millions), and they are absolutely impossible to gather with any credibility, but I'll look. Regarding prize money, etc, that's a good question too, and I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be vague along the lines of "was broadcast live in X countries, including y, z, and w". Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff about the broadcasters, online streaming and lack of prize money. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering the content; but I think you should mention China's CCTV also broadcasting it live. Nergaal (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the map (using |upright= rather than fixed px size)
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit Commons, perhaps you could do the honours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does {{PD-US}} apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just told me it did. And to tag it as such. I'm not an image copyright expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me clarify: the image needs to have any US public domain tag. {{US-PD}} would be correct if this particular design predates 1923 - does it? That's the part I'm unsure of and was hoping you would know. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I didn't upload it. I'm not the person to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few to start with, more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"while the women's race saw BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors": I'm never entirely happy with the use of "saw" like this. I think the repetition of "sponsored by" would be justified.
Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"it was announced that the sponsors would be donating the title sponsorship to Cancer Research UK": The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe something along the lines of "would donate the prize money to"? (Although I realise it wasn't prize money... hmm)
Reworded a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and that this year's event was to be retitled": Maybe "that year's"?
Tweaked, not exactly the same as your suggestion, but an improvement I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the coaches section plods a little, but I think that is unavoidable and the section is undoubtedly necessary.
"Umpired by Rob Clegg, the Oxford boats, Scylla and Charybdis took part in a "phenomenal race"." As written, it looks as if Clegg umpired the boats rather than the race
Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As conditions worsened past Chiswick Eyot,": Conditions worsened in what way? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source says, and I can't find any other sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got another souce (albeit OUWBC) which describes a strong headwind which caused rough water, and it was these conditions that "worsened", so I've incorporated that into the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I have responded to each, and look forward to your further review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sorry for the delay, real life a little hectic at the moment! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"With the umpire having to warn both crews for encroachment": Can we say what encroachment is in this context.
Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Cambridge were considered the favourites to win for the first time since the 2012 race": The old favourite: considered by who?
As usual, the bookies. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The second segment from the Mile Post to Chiswick Eyot saw further clashes between the crews", "The second race saw the crews rowing back from Chiswick Eyot to the Finish Post" and "Oxford also saw three participants with Boat Race experience return": Saw again. Sorry!
De-sawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point that may not be obvious to everyone: Should we explain the purposes of the trials and the practice races? Not everyone may know why there were so many different races before the main ones.
Trials are less obvious so I've added a sentence preceding the subsections. Practice races seem self-evident to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any media coverage after the event, or comments on the race in general afterwards?
That's in the Reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking good overall. Perhaps my only issue is the lead; it seems a little brief and does not perhaps summarise each section of the article. Could we expand it a little? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on the lead now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 lead expanded a touch, is there anything else there you'd like to see which isn't currently suitably covered? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good to me now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

In general, this article looks well written and covers the races well. A few niggles:

I agree with Sarastro1 that the lead section seems a bit inadequate.
Still working on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford went into the race as champions" - The subject of the previous sentences was the generic boat race, so you need to specify here that you are talking about the 2016 event.
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but Cambridge led overall with 81 victories" - It's a pity to use "led" for the overall score as well as the crews' positions in the race.
I know what you mean but could you suggest an alternative? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but Cambridge had amassed 81 previous victories to Oxford's 79"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "amassed" revolts me, perhaps the sentence works as well without it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ping me when you are finished with the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be consistent on how you use apostrophes in "men's reserves'" and similar places throughout the article.
Have tried. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the former becoming the first female official of one of the men's races in history." - This could be better expressed.
Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"He was a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - Using the past tense makes it sound as if he is dead.
Reworeded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"CUWBC's trial was conducted between Twickenham and Tideway in rough water and windy conditions." - This took me by surprise as I at first thought it referred to locations on the river rather than boats.
Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Goldie had lost both races against an alternate Oxford Brookes crew earlier." - I don't think the article explains the term "Goldie", nor in fact "Isis".
Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly for "Blondie"
Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford's crew also contained hree participants with Boat Race experience" - typo.
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford's Isis beat Goldie in the men's reserves race, their sixth consecutive victory and eighth in nine years, by two lengths in a time of 18 minutes 55 seconds." - This sentence needs rephrasing.
Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"as the crews passed below Hammersmith Bridge two seconds down," - Which team was two seconds down?
Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" while Oxford remained in the rough water, losing some of their advantage. Oxford were eight seconds ahead by Chiswick Steps and continued to pull away." - Contradictory?
Seems so. Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"probably the worst I have experienced on the Tideway" - The Reaction section mentions the conditions being bad, but I don't see mention of this in the main text. Perhaps we could have a sentence or two earlier in the article describing the weather conditions (and tide if significant).
Weather noted, wind and water. Tide not noted in RS.
- That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments, all bar the short lead have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cwmhiraeth lead expanded a touch, is there anything else there you'd like to see which isn't currently suitably covered? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am happy with the alterations made and support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – In honor of Britain's fine Olympic performance, I read through this one several days ago and was happy with it, but decided to wait until Sarastro's review was done. I noticed one little glitch that I fixed, but other than that the article is well worthy of the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and cheers for fixing the the the thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- I think we're just looking for a source review for formatting/reliability now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Unless I'm missing the rationale for linking or not, I think we need some consistency whether newspaper titles are linked in the references
All consistent now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Race Company: This might have come up at previous reviews, but what makes this reliable (and I'm sure it is, just checking)? Also, do we need the External Link if we are using the site as a reference? (I'm always vague on the rules for this one)
They are the organisation which runs the event, such as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or The Nobel Foundation. I don't see why their reliability should be called into question, unless there's something truly controversial in the text I've written and used their sources to verify, if so can you specify please? As for the EL, it links to the homepage which is not used as an inline reference, so, again, I don't see any problem with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. (And just asking rather than questioning their reliability) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, Ref 29 does not quite go to where it says: it goes to the "live" page, but the information cited is at the bottom of that page which has a different title
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources fine for formatting and reliability. Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all addressed and/or responded to above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I won't hold up promotion but could you pls check the Build-up section for overlinking? Craven Cottage is the worst offender, showing up twice using Ucucha's checker, meaning it's linked three times in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Had I known such a tool existed, I'd have been using it forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.